Conservapedia

Changes

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 01:42, March 14, 2007

762 bytes added ,  01:42, March 14, 2007
→‎Liberal Wikipedians as compared to conservative Wikipedians
Line 636: Line 636:     
:::The wikipedia numbers are based on a selfselected sample of about 300 people who felt like putting political orientation into their profile. This sample is unlikely to be representative for the 3.8 million wikipedians. Even if your guts tell you that a rate 3 to 1 liberal is close to reality. Its your guts that say this, because these numbers don't prove anything. These numbers are not corrected for age, sex, education. And there are only two choices: liberal, and conservative (in contrast to 3). And the way you compute with fractions is even fundamentally flawed, even if the numbers were right and significant, but that a different issue altogether.
 
:::The wikipedia numbers are based on a selfselected sample of about 300 people who felt like putting political orientation into their profile. This sample is unlikely to be representative for the 3.8 million wikipedians. Even if your guts tell you that a rate 3 to 1 liberal is close to reality. Its your guts that say this, because these numbers don't prove anything. These numbers are not corrected for age, sex, education. And there are only two choices: liberal, and conservative (in contrast to 3). And the way you compute with fractions is even fundamentally flawed, even if the numbers were right and significant, but that a different issue altogether.
 +
 +
:::: No, the sample is not merely 300 people in the Wikipedia.  It's thousands, or millions, of which well over 300 people responded.  It is MORE reliable than a poll that only contacts a few hundred people.  The Wikipedia survey is like an election, where people have the option of voting or not voting.  That is MORE accurate than a telephone poll that does not expressly give people that option.
    
::: Since this is the only '''bold''' statement in the entire article on bias in Wikipedia, it better be right. However, it is wrong on so many levels. The only thing that speaks for it that it coincides with your gut feeling. It is a gift to any liberal who wants to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. Its like starting a football match and giving away penalty kicks to the opponents.  --[[User:Order|Order]] 10:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)
 
::: Since this is the only '''bold''' statement in the entire article on bias in Wikipedia, it better be right. However, it is wrong on so many levels. The only thing that speaks for it that it coincides with your gut feeling. It is a gift to any liberal who wants to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. Its like starting a football match and giving away penalty kicks to the opponents.  --[[User:Order|Order]] 10:03, 14 March 2007 (AEST)
 +
 +
:::: This debate illustrates how the problem is more than the fact that Wikipedia is liberal.  It is that Wikipedians won't admit they are liberal.  That's what makes Conservapedia so much better.  We're up-front about our point-of-view.  Liberal Wikipedians pretend they are not liberal, when they are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
    
== How are we supposed to contribute? ==
 
== How are we supposed to contribute? ==
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,468

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/33297"