Difference between revisions of "Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"
TimSvendsen (talk | contribs) m (Talk:Wackypedia moved to Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia) |
(Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia?) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
: '''REPLY'''OK, Tim, you win. Go ahead and erase the "Wackypedia" references as you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 6 January 2007 (EST) | : '''REPLY'''OK, Tim, you win. Go ahead and erase the "Wackypedia" references as you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 6 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Gossip and vulgarity== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article states "Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia." | ||
| + | |||
| + | I just tried an experiment. I clicked Wikipedia's "random article" link twenty times. I did not encounter any pages that I would describe as containing either gossip or vulgarity. I would be curious if others would try the same experiment and report their results. If you find one and are comfortable identifying which page contains the "gossip or vulgarity" do so, but of course do not if you think that the degree of vulgarity violates Conservapedia's standards. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Wikipedia's biographies, particularly of living people in the public eye, '''are''' more likely to contain ''unflattering'' material than some other sources. For example, the article on NPR news correspondent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Totenberg Nina Totenberg], mentions a plagiarism incident. Such biographies are usually subject to editing by many editors, and material of this sort doesn't usually stay very long unless a source is cited; in this case, a Wall Street Journal article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:29, 7 January 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 22:29, January 7, 2007
I think that we should call the page "Wikipedia."
Tim,
Thanks for your suggestion, but I'm inclined to disagree. "Wackypedia" conveys an important and valid point that merely calling it "Wikipedia" would not. --Aschlafly 22:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
Man oh man! We are really beating Wikipedia up! Will N.
- Indeed. Dpbsmith 11:35, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Out of idle curiosity, is the important and valid point: "wikipedia is wacky"?
The point here is that if we want to be a credible website we should call things by their proper names. If you want to make the point that Wikipedia is waky or biased or whatever, do it in the body of the article. I think that if Wikipedia had an article on Conservapedia, but called it Conservastupidia, you would not like it, and would probably include it in your list of Wikipedia bias. --TimSvendsen 11:56, 6 January 2007 (EST)
I TOTALLY agree with Tim,
- REPLYOK, Tim, you win. Go ahead and erase the "Wackypedia" references as you like.--Aschlafly 15:23, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Gossip and vulgarity
The article states "Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia."
I just tried an experiment. I clicked Wikipedia's "random article" link twenty times. I did not encounter any pages that I would describe as containing either gossip or vulgarity. I would be curious if others would try the same experiment and report their results. If you find one and are comfortable identifying which page contains the "gossip or vulgarity" do so, but of course do not if you think that the degree of vulgarity violates Conservapedia's standards.
Wikipedia's biographies, particularly of living people in the public eye, are more likely to contain unflattering material than some other sources. For example, the article on NPR news correspondent Nina Totenberg, mentions a plagiarism incident. Such biographies are usually subject to editing by many editors, and material of this sort doesn't usually stay very long unless a source is cited; in this case, a Wall Street Journal article. Dpbsmith 17:29, 7 January 2007 (EST)