Changes

: Folks, the math is correct, and no one credibly disputes that Wikipedia has a liberal bias.  Those who do dispute it only serve to illustrate the deception of  Wikipedians pretending not to be biased.  Be up-front about your point-of-view.  Are you liberal yourselves?  Don't be bashful, disclose your point-of-view as we do here, and then we can have a more meaningful dialog.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: Folks, the math is correct, and no one credibly disputes that Wikipedia has a liberal bias.  Those who do dispute it only serve to illustrate the deception of  Wikipedians pretending not to be biased.  Be up-front about your point-of-view.  Are you liberal yourselves?  Don't be bashful, disclose your point-of-view as we do here, and then we can have a more meaningful dialog.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:20, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry, the math is really incorrect.  It doesn't serve you well to label everybody who points to wrong math as ''liberal''. A valid point (bias in Wikipedia) is made tainted by invalid math, especially when combined with calling names to settle a mathematical dispute. This point is just a red herring, and will do nothing than give people an opportunity to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. There is nothing wrong with droppoing this point, since everybody knows that Wikipedia has a liberal bias.

:: Sorry, the math is really incorrect.  It doesn't serve you well to label everybody who points to wrong math as ''liberal''. A valid point (bias in Wikipedia) is made tainted by invalid math, especially when combined with calling names to settle a mathematical dispute. This point is just a red herring, and will do nothing than give people an opportunity to ridicule Conservapedia and its editors. There is nothing wrong with droppoing this point, since everybody knows that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:55, 12 March 2007 (AEST)

==Additional problems with Wikipedia==

==Additional problems with Wikipedia==