Changes

13.  Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism).

13.  Wikipedia has many entries on "[[concession]]", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism).

14.  Within days after someone posted an entry on Wikipedia about Conservapedia, an ugly notice of potential "deletion" (censorship) was posted on the top of the website.  Then a half-dozen anonymous critics demanded the the entry be deleted. Their same arguments would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries, but they did not complain about those other entries. The entry about Conservapedia remained defaced throughout the "debate". This comment in support of Conservapedia summed it up:

14.  Within days after someone posted an entry on Wikipedia about Conservapedia, a notice of potential "deletion" was posted on the top of the website.  Those arguing for deletion said that Conservapedia did not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability of websites, because Conservapedia is as yet relatively small and infrequently visited. Those arguing against it said that the arguments for deletion were mere pretexts, and that Wikipedia's true motivation was bias against conservative websites. In the end, an administrator judged that there was rough consensus for deleting the article, and it was deleted. People associated with a project who create an article about a project frequently believe they have special knowledge and should "own" the article, but Wikipedia does not attempt to judge editorial competence and allows anyone to edit any article; in such circumstances, disagreements are common. During its existence, the Conservapedia article was edited by various editors, including some not associated with Conservapedia. At various times before it was deleted, the article about Conservapedia was not in accord with the way Conservapedia likes to present itself, and at times exhibited bias both for and against Conservapedia.  

15.  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

 

15.  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not take steps to reduce bias or provide balance. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this:  "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective[citation needed] because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."

The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this:  "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory.  CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective[citation needed] because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."