Difference between revisions of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 857589 by Boriskrinkle (talk))
(Undo revision 857588 by Boriskrinkle (talk))
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 19:33, 31 December 2010 (EST)</blockquote>
 
The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics--[[User:CenterRight|CenterRight]] 19:33, 31 December 2010 (EST)</blockquote>
 +
 +
=== Abortion ===
 +
See [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion]]
  
 
=== Anti-Christianity ===
 
=== Anti-Christianity ===

Revision as of 02:40, March 18, 2011

Below is a growing list of examples of liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The atheist Jimmy Wales was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Christian apologist JP Holding called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".[1]

Examples of Bias

General/Uncategorized

Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink. (considered by many as "radical left wing"). Any attempts there to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs.

So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink

The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics--CenterRight 19:33, 31 December 2010 (EST)

Abortion

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion

Anti-Christianity

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity

Conservapedia smears

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears

Conservative personalities and politicians

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

Global warming

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming

Homosexuality

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality

Liberal Politicians

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians

Obama

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama

Science and Evolution

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution

Humorous quotes relating to bias and Wikipedia

See also: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd - satire

An article entitled Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds declared:

“ So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: nerds.[2]

”

Song excerpt

“ All of my action figures are Cherry,

Stephen Hawking's in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme, whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin' And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so White and nerdy". - White and Nerdy, Weird Al Yankovic[3]

”

See also

External Links

References

Guidelines for inclusion:

  • Each entry must include a diff which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
  • Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
  • Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!