7
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 20:37, February 23, 2008
, 20:37, February 23, 2008→Point-by-point analysis
: "Blabberno", your dialog is unreadable. Pick your best 5 examples, and I'll reply. In the meantime, please contribute in a substantive way while you're here, so that all can learn with you. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 23 February 2008 (EST)
: "Blabberno", your dialog is unreadable. Pick your best 5 examples, and I'll reply. In the meantime, please contribute in a substantive way while you're here, so that all can learn with you. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:50, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Sorry, I did kind of realize it was hard to read. I'll choose my best few responses (in my opinion):
3, 8, 18, 52, 54: merge; these are all the same point that Wiki does not cite things correctly, although the actual point is accurate.
39. How much they donate is irrelevant to what they believe in.
44. “Citation needed” does not mean that it may not be true, just that they need a citation. And first you complain that they don’t have it, but then you complain that they do?
75. Meanwhile the same page is locked here, forcing only one side of the issue on us.
77. Fixed, and how do we know that? Meanwhile the same article about Conservapedia was blocked here.
98. True, but they definitely are in the minority, so they would want to self-identify more. It’s like saying people with hair have no category, but people with no hair do, so they're anti-hair.
Sorry again about the bad formatting. When I originally did it, it was in the right type: line by line. Is there a way to make it the correct format? --[[User:Blabberno|Blabberno]] 15:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)