Difference between revisions of "Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"
RexMundane (talk | contribs) (...and about the math...) |
RexMundane (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Porn again == | == Porn again == | ||
| − | So no explanation of how opposing regulation of media (which is what opposition would require) is a liberal viewpoint, simply the statement that it is de facto the case without a lick of evidence to back it up. Marvelous. Your book deal with Regnery is a shoe in now sir. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT) | + | So no explanation of how opposing regulation of media (which is what opposition to pornography would necessarily require) is a liberal viewpoint, simply the statement that it is de facto the case without a lick of evidence to back it up. Marvelous. Your book deal with Regnery is a shoe in now sir. |
| + | --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
== ...and about the math... == | == ...and about the math... == | ||
| Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
You say that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public, and one of the statistics you cite gives the American public as being 18% liberal. | You say that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public, and one of the statistics you cite gives the American public as being 18% liberal. | ||
| − | So... Wikipedia is 108% liberal then? I mean that is what you're saying by treating the numbers that way. Of course thats just silly little me for thinking that cant be right. Here I am, brain the size of a planet and it looks for all the world to me like you're twisting math around your middle finger to make numbers say something they self evidently | + | So... Wikipedia is 108% liberal then? I mean that is what you're saying by treating the numbers that way. Of course thats just silly little me for thinking that cant be right. Here I am, brain the size of a planet and it looks for all the world to me like you're twisting math around your middle finger to make numbers say something they self evidently can't. |
--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 20:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT) | --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 20:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:36, April 5, 2007
| ! | Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop. |
|
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4
Post comments here
Porn again
So no explanation of how opposing regulation of media (which is what opposition to pornography would necessarily require) is a liberal viewpoint, simply the statement that it is de facto the case without a lick of evidence to back it up. Marvelous. Your book deal with Regnery is a shoe in now sir. --RexMundane 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
...and about the math...
You say that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public, and one of the statistics you cite gives the American public as being 18% liberal.
So... Wikipedia is 108% liberal then? I mean that is what you're saying by treating the numbers that way. Of course thats just silly little me for thinking that cant be right. Here I am, brain the size of a planet and it looks for all the world to me like you're twisting math around your middle finger to make numbers say something they self evidently can't. --RexMundane 20:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT)