4,994
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 22:29, January 7, 2007
, 22:29, January 7, 2007Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia?
: '''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)