Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears (view source)
Revision as of 00:30, December 14, 2016
, 00:30, December 14, 2016Permanent link.
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>
# In 2011 Wikipedia User Σ organized systematic vandalism of Conservapedia using the English Wikipedia IRC. This only came to light when he was nominated to be a Wikipedia Administrator and users there debated whether his actions were a good or bad thing to do.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%CE%A3&oldid=516746349</ref>
# In discussions at Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, one editor argued, "You know, conservapedia tends to welcome fringe opinions derived from far-right op-ed statements. You should try there instead."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Neutral</ref> to which another replied, "The most egregious part, is that editors refuse to find evidence to support their claims and resort to calls for the discussion to stop or for established editors to leave the project and go to conservapedia. This is not helpful."
# In discussions at Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, one editor argued, "You know, conservapedia tends to welcome fringe opinions derived from far-right op-ed statements. You should try there instead."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Neutral</ref> to which another replied, "The most egregious part, is that editors refuse to find evidence to support their claims and resort to calls for the discussion to stop or for established editors to leave the project and go to conservapedia. This is not helpful."
# Wikipedia states that 'Various Conservapedia articles contradict established fields of science' which is clearly false<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref>.
# Wikipedia states that 'Various Conservapedia articles contradict established fields of science' which is false.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=754613622</ref>
== References ==
== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]