Difference between revisions of "Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"
m |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*Indeed. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:35, 6 January 2007 (EST) | *Indeed. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:35, 6 January 2007 (EST) | ||
| − | Out of idle curiosity, is the important and valid point | + | Out of idle curiosity, is the important and valid point: "wikipedia is wacky"? |
[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] | [[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] | ||
Revision as of 17:07, January 6, 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 TOTALY agree with Tim,
