2,002
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 01:47, April 3, 2007
, 01:47, April 3, 2007→Ratio (again)
: You have a point, but often the answer is those two populations are the same in result, because one liberal often does dominate a population having 99 moderates and no conservatives. Moderates are often people who go along to get along. One Hillary Clinton and 99 moderates may be just as liberal, and more effective, than 100 Hillarys (who can then conflict with each other) and no moderates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: You have a point, but often the answer is those two populations are the same in result, because one liberal often does dominate a population having 99 moderates and no conservatives. Moderates are often people who go along to get along. One Hillary Clinton and 99 moderates may be just as liberal, and more effective, than 100 Hillarys (who can then conflict with each other) and no moderates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::You must believe that Hillary is a very powerful person. Quite an admiration for Hillary from a self-confessed conservative. And I am not sure if moderate will like it to learn that you think that the are pushovers.
::Anyway, just counting liberals and conservatives doesn't work either. If you think that moderates will under influence of Hillary swing towards Hillary, then compute the non-conservative bias which is (population-conservatives)/population or since you firmly believe in scales from zero to infinity (population-conservatives)/conservatives.
::The problem with your '''liberal bias in a population''' is that that liberal bias doesn't mention conservatives, but the population. What you compute is the liberal bias/conservative bias quotient. Call it that way, and not ''liberal bias''.
* Why don't you respond to the fact that your definition of liberal bias in Wikipedia is based on quick sand? Or thin air.
* Why don't you respond to the fact that your definition of liberal bias in Wikipedia is based on quick sand? Or thin air.
: Well, because it isn't. You still haven't proposed a better alternative, despite having weeks to think about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: Well, because it isn't. You still haven't proposed a better alternative, despite having weeks to think about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
* And I did tell you what my definition of liberal bias in a population is. Twice. In this section, called '''Ratio (again)''' , you'll find two itemized lists (lists with bullet points). And the last item in both lists tells you to take the percentage of liberals (which is equal to Liberal/Population). You said now for the second time that nobody gave you an alternative definition. I assume that you are smart guy, so tell me why you didn't see it? And could you for a change start answering questions, rather than evade them.[[User:Order]]
::First point: why is your statistic based on thin air:
::* It relies on raw data from a self-selected sample (This alone would do it)
::* You compare the outcome of a poll with 3 possible answers, to one with 131 different answers.
::* You compare the outcome of a poll where you can only choose one option, with one where you choose as many options as you like
::* Wikipedia is not measure by the wikipedians, but by the articles that wikipedians write.
::Second point: That I never proposed an alternative.
::And to your surprise: I proposed weeks ago (18 March) how to measure the liberal bias of Wikipedia in this very section. The second itemized list, last bullet point. When do you start to read answers, rather than complain that nobody give you an answer?
::My answer was and is,
::*Select 100 random articles. Wikipedia gives you the option to do so, and it would be random sample. You might want to rule or stubs and articles flagged as POV. So, you click the random article link in Wikipedia, until you got hundred that are not stubs, and not POV.
::*You read those, and classify them, according to your standard, into Conservative, Moderate (NPOV), Liberal, the categories in the Harris poll. You would have to specify, ideally before you start reading, what it means to be conservative, liberal, and moderate (NPOV).
::*With this raw data you can do all kinds of statistics. Compute liberal bias, conservative bias, and the liberal/conservative bias quotient that you love so much.
::It will take an afternoons work, but at the end you will have good numbers. You can then go in good faith on public radio and say "We conducted a study". [[User:order|Order]] 3 April, 11:20 AEST
* And I did tell you what my definition of liberal bias in a population is. Twice. In this section, called '''Ratio (again)''' , you'll find two itemized lists (lists with bullet points). And the last item in both lists tells you to take the percentage of liberals (which is equal to Liberal/Population). You said now for the second time that nobody gave you an alternative definition. I assume that you are smart guy, so tell me why you didn't see it? And could you for a change start answering questions, rather than evade them. [[User:order|Order]] 3 April, 11:20 AEST
: As explained above, your definition is obviously unacceptable because it doesn't take into consideration the number of conservatives, and the ratio of liberals to conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: As explained above, your definition is obviously unacceptable because it doesn't take into consideration the number of conservatives, and the ratio of liberals to conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I said it before ''liberal bias of the population'' doesn't mention conservatives. If you find it unacceptable, call it something that mentions ''conservatives''. If you call it simply ''liberal bias'' lots of people will be deceived, and lots of people have been deceived. It is your hand to call it something that mentions ''conservatives''. [[User:order|Order]] 3 April, 11:20 AEST
::BTW: You didn't say before that you ''found it unacceptable'', you said that you ''didn't see a definition''. If you had said why you found the definition unacceptable, we could have had a short cut. [[User:order|Order]] 3 April, 11:20 AEST
== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==
== Re: #6 (Great Flood) ==