127
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 16:05, February 14, 2008
, 16:05, February 14, 2008Bias check
The Wikipedia article is constantly edited to make sure that it '''does not''' actually address the subject, as stated in its own title. There are redundant paragraphs about how almost all "scientists" (computer scientists? political scientists?) alledgedly support evolutionism. What is (usually) missing is the essential truth necessary for the article to be useful - what are the views of the general population? The polls by Newsweek, Gallup, and CBS show quite similar results. The numbers can easily be verified online. However, against WP's own stated policies, they are removed from the article again and again. [[User:Perlster|Perlster]]
The Wikipedia article is constantly edited to make sure that it '''does not''' actually address the subject, as stated in its own title. There are redundant paragraphs about how almost all "scientists" (computer scientists? political scientists?) alledgedly support evolutionism. What is (usually) missing is the essential truth necessary for the article to be useful - what are the views of the general population? The polls by Newsweek, Gallup, and CBS show quite similar results. The numbers can easily be verified online. However, against WP's own stated policies, they are removed from the article again and again. [[User:Perlster|Perlster]]
== Bias check ==
Could I get a check on Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Minnesota History of Minnesota] article to determine where it's biased and where it's just wrong? The article talks about the increasing role of government in the early 20th century, and it talks about [[Hubert Humphrey]] and the rise of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, so those issues in themselves may be questionable. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 11:05, 14 February 2008 (EST)