Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

!

Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.

Archives

National Enquirer revisited

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, PostoStudanto 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the National Enquirer and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the National Enquirer of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. Karajou 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--Aschlafly 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - PostoStudanto 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand what gossip is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of gossip. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Wha?

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. GofG _|^|_| Talk 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

CreationWiki and ResearchID.org do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_PageConservative 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

#71

How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers. Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link. Masterbratac 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

• Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. Masterbratac 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

• Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? Masterbratac 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

• Break your sig? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

It made the linky all non-linky. Masterbratac 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

• What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

• I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. Masterbratac 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

• Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

• Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . Masterbratac 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... Rob Smith 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Number 71 is Wikipedia's error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do liberals have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Bias or Error?

• Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.

On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.

Masterbratac 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's liberal bias, which includes gossip, political correctness and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.

Masterbratac 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

• You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of Deceit. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

• I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. Masterbratac 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

If you deny what a liberal is, and what gossip is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of gossip on Wikipedia; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of liberal bias; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of liberal bias. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? Masterbratac 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

The concept of an elementary proof is well-known in mathematics and was widely taught to top mathematics students at least until 25 years ago. Yet Wikipedia refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, are not elementary proofs and liberals don't want to admit that. Liberals prefer instead to claim that mathematicians today are smarter than the devoutly Christian mathematicians like Bernhard Riemann and Carl Gauss. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to liberal bias.

Explained another way, liberals detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an elementary proof. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.

I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. Masterbratac 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of elementary proof on Wikipedia, and the prolonged insistence by liberals there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?

Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. Masterbratac 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. Liberals on Wikipedia did resist including an entry for elementary proof. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--Aschlafly 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. Masterbratac 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

• Can you explain again what is liberal about the omission of elementary proof?
• Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
• Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of Bernhard Riemann that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
• Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of Paul Erdos that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? Order 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many liberals do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [1] --Aschlafly 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. Order 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war.

While writing our stub for Robert McNamara I noticed that the Wikipedia article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [2]. SkipJohnson 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia.

See [3] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . SkipJohnson 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--Aschlafly 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "Wikipedia's article on Haldane's Dillemma, a serious problem for evolution downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution. " SkipJohnson 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? Graham 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? SkipJohnson 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that this is science. --_transResident Transfan^form!

Then suppose you tell us: what exactly is science? And where is it written that science ipso facto excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them a priori as untenable?--TerryH^Talk 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.

Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. Graham 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly is not falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of Occam's razor. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

You still have not given a workable definition of the term science. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould and Eugenie Carol Scott, that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, through material processes only, and assumes a priori that nothing immaterial exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material or immaterial, for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether

1. Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
2. whether such censorship is appropriate.--TerryH^Talk 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. Graham 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

The King of England? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the Associated Press or Reuters or even the British Broadcasting Corporation? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you understand that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by evolution I mean the materialistic theory of life origin and development. That theory is a null hypothesis within the meaning of statistics. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

And those implications go far beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are held accountable for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear Graham. That's the part you can't face.--TerryH^Talk 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. Graham 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase scientific method as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though that were a proved fact, too. Not only is it not proved, but it could not have happened as commonly described. Something did happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but that that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word science that allows you to claim that God either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you hope is the consequent.

PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that Someone settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you have an account to settle...--TerryH^Talk 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)