4,994
edits
Changes
Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability? (view source)
Revision as of 22:27, January 26, 2007
, 22:27, January 26, 2007no edit summary
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.
WIkipedia has certain kinds of reliability problems, but they relate mostly to its being a Wiki that anybody can edit.
I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice the [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.
I don't think it has problems ''because'' of bias. In fact, I believe that in practice Wikipedia's "neutrality" policy usually results in articles that represent all points of view, at least in the sense of mentioning their existence and linking to other information.
For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.
For example, if someone goes to the article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Evolution], they will see that it has section on "Social and religious controversies," which in turn links to a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy Creation-evolution controversy]. There is also a long article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Social_and_religious_controversies Creationism]. Wikipedia acknowledges the controversy, even in its main article on evolution, and doesn't try to hide it.
Of course, in a controversial article, people on both sides tend to think that their ''own'' side wasn't treated fairly.
Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)
Wikipedia should not be trusted uncritically. Neither should other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is sometimes ''better'' than other encyclopedias in showing the ''sources'' where it got its information. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:26, 26 January 2007 (EST)