Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

Unprotected by User:Ed Poor

Archives

possible bias

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps" --TedM 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, that's typical liberal bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--Aschlafly 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by KalleF

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps and they meet the definition of a concentration camp if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. Rhino7628 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.

I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".

Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.

However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --Jenkins 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. Rhino7628 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.

Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles (Atheism, Homosexuality, Theory of Evolution, etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).

Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like placement bias) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --Jenkins 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

Outdated info

Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?KalleF 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --Jenkins 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.Shocktherapy 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.Alloco1 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Richard Dawkins' edit

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about 1 1/2 hours with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his one previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? PostoStudanto 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

• Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.

And there is a factual error in the entry: It did not take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: Talk page

That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have User:Stephenblack editing Stephen Black and First Stone Ministries ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite delighted about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --Jenkins 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

grammatical note

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to Michael Moore, who's official website..." should read "whose official website." Greg 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

And Committe should be Committee. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

"Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did."

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is worse than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?Shocktherapy 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. Feebasfactor 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia removed the smear against the Democrat, the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--Aschlafly 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. Feebasfactor 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about Richard Dawkins, where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is more wrong if it is true!--Aschlafly 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? Feebasfactor 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see Wikipedia using guilt-by-association to smear liberals. Instead, the biased Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association to smear conservatives only.--Aschlafly 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

#82 is out-dated/incorrect

It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one was deleted shortly thereafter. See this link. нмŵוτнτ 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

Someone please make this change this. нмŵוτнτ 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was deleted on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per this discussion. Feebasfactor 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). Feebasfactor 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. Feebasfactor 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Factual corrections on Henry Liddell

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The edit that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--Aschlafly 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. PostoStudanto (Tλlk) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs

I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong liberal bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed (see graph). This should be incorporated into the article. нмŵוτнτ 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? HelpJazz 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general U.S. public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--Aschlafly 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a liberal bias? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately liberal? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? Feebasfactor 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--Bayes 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. нмŵוτнτ 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. нмŵוτнτ 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Why does this matter?

I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.Morgoth 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--Aschlafly 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. Gofyylb 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Echew99 (talk)

Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places

I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [1]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? Feebasfactor 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Aha, here it is: [2] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... Feebasfactor 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on Wikipedia. That's quicker than the time it took Wikipedia to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--Aschlafly 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the liberal "mistakes" on Wikipedia are very, very slow in being corrected.--Aschlafly 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. Feebasfactor 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--Aschlafly 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

#2 (Prodigal Son)

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The disambiguation page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part. --LutherBifteck 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of Wikipedia entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

Wikipedia has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the Prodigal Son was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the Prodigal Son was correct when written.--Aschlafly 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Seigenthaler controversy

WP's Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the New Yorker retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [3]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? Rob Smith 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Technical correction: According to the Wikipedia Oversight documentation the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. Rob Smith 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)

I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

#81

Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose." - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. Gofyylb 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

Belfast / Good Friday Agreement

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement". It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, "The Agreement".

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the Northern Ireland Bill which implemented the Agreement.

The official website of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled "The Agreement" and includes an annex entitled, "Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --Setanta 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia betrays itself [4] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian bigotry. Rob Smith 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

#4 Justice Byron White Error

Is this bias? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often liberal smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--Aschlafly 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that conclusively contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.

The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous liberal smears, such many identified in the content page here: Bias in Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

This is the talk page for that article. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Dawkins again

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? Order 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

#84

I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in the article - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--IDuan 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

You still don't "get it" about the bias of gossip in Wikipedia. #84 is example of Wikipedia fomenting false gossip. Wikipedia pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--Aschlafly 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)

I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--IDuan 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

#8

This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. Wisdom89 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

#20

This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. Wisdom89 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

But Wikipedia does have an entry on deceit, using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if Wikipedia omitted the entry entirely.--Aschlafly 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers Wisdom89 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Now you make a different argument. In fact, Wikipedia only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. Wikipedia used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--Aschlafly 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[5] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an apparent hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[6] Jinxmchue 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--Aschlafly 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

Viewership

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, and then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages while attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --TrueGrit 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

Unfair?

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about Al Gore on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some magical button that I could press in which I could add content to or delete erroneous content from Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. Cheesehead 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. Karajou 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. Wisdom89 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. "ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all" Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. Karajou 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. Wisdom89 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Cheesehead, try to understand what gossip and liberal bias are before denying that they permeate Wikipedia entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by Wikipedia, and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

German-American

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [7][8]. Order 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to Thomas Nast. But Wikipedia, in its bias for phony globalism, pushes it.--Aschlafly 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. Wisdom89 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? User1601 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to Thomas Nast. But Wikipedia with its anti-American and globalist bias, pushes the confusing term.--Aschlafly 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)

First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [9], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [10], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [11]. Order 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the liberal direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on Google before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--Aschlafly 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the German American Heritage Foundation. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. SSchultz 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.

First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?

Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.

Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?

Order 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

User:Order, I can see you lurching towards last wordism here, as liberals tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--Aschlafly 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)

3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. Order 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

What's Wrong With Bias?

If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?User1601 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)

A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

User1601, Wikipedia is not "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit Wikipedia to correct its bias are futile - in response, the liberal mob and bullies who run Wikipedia will restore the bias or even make it worse!--Aschlafly 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -Vcelloho 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--Aschlafly 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--Aschlafly 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well you know that kind of seems like a load of crap because it doesn't exist now and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Echew99 (talk)

Renaissance: I contest point 64

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -Vcelloho 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count

I just noticed this:

29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included:

30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38]
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39]
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40]
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41]

34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

1. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included:

   • pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating
   • anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him
   • the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS
   • conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS

   In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --JakeC 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). GlobeGores 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each instance of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --JakeC 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[12], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[13], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. Philip J. Rayment 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST) P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. Philip J. Rayment 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Another example of Wikipedia silliness

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of featured vandalism? Also, both administrators and users go berserk on April Fools' Day instead of acting like a real encyclopedia would - that is, to treat it like any other day. GlobeGores 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Regarding April Fool's Day: Maybe not the best idea? (Note: The link points to the section above the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --JakeC 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. HelpJazz 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Zeta - if we want to go there?

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our rules]

You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than Wikipedia requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Organization

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--PhineasBogg 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Done. --Ed Poor ^Talk 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--PhineasBogg 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --Ed Poor ^Talk 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through placement bias. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--Aschlafly 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it here. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is here. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. Jinxmchue 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)

I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. Philip J. Rayment 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. Jinxmchue 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how Wikipedia causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the atheistic culture.--Aschlafly 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Uh, hello? I was accused of being a sockpuppet and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is hostility on my talk page. Also, the article liberal style #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as trolling and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) LardoBolger 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [14] Jinxmchue 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I did get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. Sin is unforgivable, and Sin (Fundamentalism) states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --Elkman 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--Aschlafly 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Um, dude. You blocked yourself for your actions. That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. Jinxmchue 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me here:

he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off.

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. Jinxmchue 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Examples should be restricted

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias. You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center by editing it your bloody self. Illuminatedwax 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)

As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. Philip J. Rayment 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

The last point

Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. Wisdom89 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)

If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. Philip J. Rayment 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. Wisdom89 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I didn't say that it wasn't for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. Philip J. Rayment 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Oxford FOI statement

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996. Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. Order 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? Feebasfactor 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)

It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. Order 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Wikipedia as a knowledge base

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. MetcalfeM

What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--Aschlafly 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. MetcalfeM

The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.MetcalfeM

It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. Wisdom89 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way. I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. MetcalfeM

The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a scientific point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors and sysops who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.

And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there may be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.

Philip J. Rayment 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

More admin screwups

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at Paul's letter to the Romans chapter 6:

Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?

Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --Elkman 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

I read your first quote and see if refers to persistent sin. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the Bible says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--Aschlafly 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. Ajkgordon 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. Philip J. Rayment 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

88. Jimbo on international editors

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. Ortega 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

Example number 14

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's talk page, and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my original message, I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([15]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, Gillespie 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)