2,002
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 04:24, April 5, 2007
, 04:24, April 5, 2007Wrong bias.
Each of the first three issues make any conclusion drawn from this data set useless. As someone said, counting bumper stickers on your way to work would be more reliable. The last mistake to measure Wikipedia by its editors is easily made, but also easily avoided. Wikipedia gives you a tool to select a random sample of articles, which you could use to determine bias. [[User:Order]] 5 April 2:15 (AEST)
Each of the first three issues make any conclusion drawn from this data set useless. As someone said, counting bumper stickers on your way to work would be more reliable. The last mistake to measure Wikipedia by its editors is easily made, but also easily avoided. Wikipedia gives you a tool to select a random sample of articles, which you could use to determine bias. [[User:Order]] 5 April 2:15 (AEST)
== Wrong bias. ==
The second problem is that the Conservapedia claim reads currently "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public". So, this sentence talks about liberals, and the public, and that is what you need to compare: Liberals and public. It doesn't mention conservatives in any form, except that they are part of the public.
We know that [[User:Aschlalfy]] doesn't want to count moderates. In his world view moderates don't count, even if they are the majority. He doesn't care that according to his math 997 moderates, 1 conservative and 2 liberals, are as biased as 666 liberal, 333 conservatives and one moderate. Most of us would disagree. If Wikipedia's articles would be for 99.7 percent unbiased (moderate), we wouldn't have this discussion, nor would Conservapedia have a reason to exist. [[User:Order]] April 5, 14:25 (AEST)