413
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 17:04, April 3, 2007
, 17:04, April 3, 2007→Item #3
Look, having sex-related articles is not bias, I do not see any reference for the claim that many of the individuals viewing these pages are young, and "popular pages" is ambiguous. Simply because there is material on Wikipedia that is sexually oriented does not decrease its value. Unlike Conservapedia, many of Wikipedia's articles, especially those on intellectual topics, are ''accurate''. Conservapedia, on the other hand, barely merits being called an encyclopedia. It's ride with hypocrisy, immaturity, totalitarianism, and other ills. I am getting closer and closer to simply quitting and denouncing the site as a failure. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 13:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Look, having sex-related articles is not bias, I do not see any reference for the claim that many of the individuals viewing these pages are young, and "popular pages" is ambiguous. Simply because there is material on Wikipedia that is sexually oriented does not decrease its value. Unlike Conservapedia, many of Wikipedia's articles, especially those on intellectual topics, are ''accurate''. Conservapedia, on the other hand, barely merits being called an encyclopedia. It's ride with hypocrisy, immaturity, totalitarianism, and other ills. I am getting closer and closer to simply quitting and denouncing the site as a failure. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 13:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, and what people use a site for does not indicate what it is. Many people use Conservapedia for entertainment, but does that make it a comedy site? No. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 13:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)