1,971
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 16:51, April 2, 2007
, 16:51, April 2, 2007→Sex and wikipedia: Thank you for updating the entry to be much more reasonable
:: The sex-related entries rank higher than that on the most recently available data. Point #3 has been updated to reflect your comments, though I note that nothing was "explicitly wrong" about its earlier version. The way that Wikipedia reports this data is not where wiki users would expect to see it, and the Wikipedia reports may be less accurate and timely than the reports on Conservapedia. An entry on John Gotti or an obscure "George Washington" (not the president) ranking so high? Seems implausible, making me wonder if the file is editing as a joke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: The sex-related entries rank higher than that on the most recently available data. Point #3 has been updated to reflect your comments, though I note that nothing was "explicitly wrong" about its earlier version. The way that Wikipedia reports this data is not where wiki users would expect to see it, and the Wikipedia reports may be less accurate and timely than the reports on Conservapedia. An entry on John Gotti or an obscure "George Washington" (not the president) ranking so high? Seems implausible, making me wonder if the file is editing as a joke.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Not that it matters to this crowd --as this article as it seems focused on mostly silly attacks on wikipedia that reveal more about conservapedian ignorance on wikipedia's processes and technologies rather than what could be a valid and credible critique of WP-- as far as the non-president "George Washington" goes. The article was a featured article on the front page last week, thus accounting for it's ranking. He invented instant coffee among other things. BTW before someone rails against it being a featured article; they pick one a day, so relatively obscure ones do show up --part of what makes wikipedia cool to the broadly curious as well as a subject of ridicule to the narrow and incurious. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Not that it matters to this crowd --as this article as it seems focused on mostly silly attacks on wikipedia that reveal more about conservapedian ignorance on wikipedia's processes and technologies rather than what could be a valid and credible critique of WP-- as far as the non-president "George Washington" goes. The article was a featured article on the front page last week, thus accounting for it's ranking. He invented instant coffee among other things. BTW before someone rails against it being a featured article; they pick one a day, so relatively obscure ones do show up --part of what makes wikipedia cool to the broadly curious as well as a subject of ridicule to the narrow and incurious. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 12:08, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Thank you for updating the entry to be much more reasonable. The criticisms currently presented are closer to things that are acknowledged/agreed by Wikipedia, so #3 is much more accurate (eg. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored offensive information isn't removed if the only objection is that it's offensive], and that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimer_templates no extra disclaimers will be given] other than the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer "Disclaimers" link] at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia).
:: Regarding the details of the statistics, note that unlike the stats here, Wikipedia's stats are what's most currently popular, not what's been popular in the past... so they're driven by the whims of current surfers. They're almost always driven by some current event (eg. the "300" movie was very near the top on opening weekend), or an inbound link (eg. social sites like Digg.com can a huge amount of traffic to a page for no immediately obvious reason). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: Also, I believe Special:Popularpages has been removed from newer versions of MediaWiki for development reasons, and when Conservapedia upgrades to a newer version of MediaWiki, Special:Popularpages will no longer be available here either. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TopTenPages] --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: Also, I believe Special:Popularpages has been removed from newer versions of MediaWiki for development reasons, and when Conservapedia upgrades to a newer version of MediaWiki, Special:Popularpages will no longer be available here either. [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TopTenPages] --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)