Difference between revisions of "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (General/Uncategorized: copy edit)
(General/Uncategorized: and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a nihilist, an extreme form of atheism)
Line 5: Line 5:
=== General/Uncategorized ===
=== General/Uncategorized ===
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and the entry never admits that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.
# Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that [[Jared Loughner]], like many Wikipedia editors, is an [[atheist]], and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a [[nihilist]], an extreme form of atheism.<ref>When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jared_Lee_Loughner&action=historysubmit&diff=407362660&oldid=407358740].</ref>
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]
# A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym ''Jagged85'' made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Evidence]
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door.  [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]
# A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door.  [[Rush Limbaugh]] repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/limbaugh-taken-in-pensacola-judge-loves-to-grow-camellias-not-shoot-bears/1122074]

Revision as of 15:52, 12 January 2011

Below is a growing list of examples of liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The atheist Jimmy Wales was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact the atheist Jimmy Wales about any biases you find at Wikipedia.

Examples of Bias


  1. Wikipedia does not mention until after 600 words that Jared Loughner, like many Wikipedia editors, is an atheist, and its entry initially failed to admit that he is also a nihilist, an extreme form of atheism.[1]
  2. A Wikipedia editor going under the pseudonym Jagged85 made 67,000 edits between 2007 and 2010 until it was demonstrated that he was systematically misrepresenting Islamic science, technology, and philosophy. [10]
  3. A Wikipedia editor named "Pensacolian" inserted false information about Judge Roger Vinson, claiming he was a bear hunter who mounted several of his trophy bear heads above his courtroom door. Rush Limbaugh repeated the claims on his radio show, compelling the Judge to issue a statement denying the falsehoods. [11]
  4. Wikipedia includes the margin of victory for a liberal politician, but omits or downplays the margin of defeat for the same politician. For example, Alan Mollohan lost in his own primary by 56-44% after voting for Obamacare, but Wikipedia's entry about him includes only his margins of victory in prior elections. The margin of defeat for liberal Gordon Brown is obscured in his Wikipedia entry also.
  5. Wikipedia uses trivia to push its liberal icons on readers. In its first 200 words about conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia used to include the meaningless trivia that he was born on the same day as (liberal) Jimmy Carter.[2] Yet nowhere in Carter's entry does it say he was born on the same day as Rehnquist.
  6. When someone goes to Wikipedia's "Constitutional Convention" page, users are taken to a general page about Constitutional conventions, instead of being taken right to the United States Constitutional Convention page. Since 2005, they have named the US page as the unheard of "Philadelphia Convention",[12] diluting its significance. They have not even renamed it "U.S. Constitutional Convention" and Google mostly matches "Philadelphia Convention Center" as a building. The US Convention is over 100-200 years older than the other conventions listed, and an Internet search confirms that "Constitutional Convention" is used more than ten times as often as "Philadelphia Convention," but the liberal and anti-American Wikipedia editors have insisted on redirecting visitors to the obscure term, for over 5 years.
  7. Wikipedia's article on engineering[3] features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient liberal boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the United States because they are not competitive.
  8. Wikipedia bias against movement conservatives is intense. Michele Bachmann won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily Democratic, but instead of crediting her conservative positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."[4]
  9. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue, journalist Joseph Farah supports his observation that Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."[5]
  10. Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it.
  11. The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk[6] made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan).[7] Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared.[8] Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko [9], but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 [10] Rezko donation. [11] Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.[12]
  12. Wikipedia smears conservative groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections,[13] usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters liberal groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."[14]
  13. Wikipedia's entry on the Scopes trial downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict."[15][16]
  14. California's Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article[17] does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.[18]
  15. The articles on both Saul Alinsky and his book, Rules for Radicals make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."[19][20]
  16. Augusto Pinochet, who overthrew communism in Chile and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia,[21] but Fidel Castro, the communist dictator of Cuba for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".[22][23]
  17. Wikipedia's entry on Gardasil, an HPV Vaccine promoted by liberals and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide"[24] (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.[25]
  18. The Wikipedia entry on baraminology (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it is based on the Holy Bible.[26]
  19. If anyone posts a profane quote on Wikipedia with the expletives censored (e.g. d--n), editors quickly restore the profanity. Wikipedia's guidelines, which its liberal editors selectively ignore, suggest to include the profanity "if and only if" such expressions will contribute to the meaning of the article.[27]
  20. Wikipedia editors tried strenuously to come up with reasons to censor embarrassing stories about the liberal John Edwards,[28] despite frequently including smears against conservatives.[29] Several sites have stories about Wikipedia's obvious liberal bias on this issue. [30][31][32]
  21. Wikipedia's article on cold fusion[33] presents it as a continuing controversy. Liberals hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited [34] Hydrino theory [35] as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
  22. Liberals loathe self-defense, and Wikipedia's entry on the national self-defense system of the Strategic Defense Initiative is seething with bias and outright falsehoods.[36] Long passages are devoted to irrational criticisms of the programs, with inexplicable prominence given to criticisms by Hans Bethe, a European-raised scientist who later endorsed John Kerry for president. The entry even claims that SDI brought "the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union to its most critical point!"[37]
  23. Wikipedia biographies for conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin are usually saddled with large sections titled “controversies”. These “controversies” are often nothing but quotes or complaints by fringe liberal elements, and Wikipedia advises against such sections, but its liberal editors ensure the biased use of such sections.[38] However, the Wikipedia page for “Hanoi” Jane Fonda describes her obviously controversial propagandizing for the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War as “political activism” rather than “controversy”. [39]
  24. Wikipedia will give often great prominence to liberal criticism of someone, while almost never giving such prominence to conservative criticism of a liberal. For example, Wikipedia's entry for conservative Texas legislator Debbie Riddle is devoted mostly to liberal criticism of an obscure quote of hers.[40] But Wikipedia's entry for liberal Chuck Schumer consists of glowing praise without including any conservative criticism of him.[41]
  25. Wikipedia's entry on censorship omits any reference to liberal censorship of classroom prayer, pro-life advertisements, conservative newspapers on college campuses, or mentioning intelligent design in school.[42]
  26. Given that one of Wikipedia's co-founders, Jimbo Wales, is an atheist, it is not particularly surprising that Wikipedia is particularly biased against prayer in school, as illustrated by its description of Coach Marcus Borden's attempts merely to bow his head while his football players pray. Wikipedia's biased description disparages community support of Borden by saying it is "regardless of federal law"; the entry says he returned to coaching as urged by the community "ostensibly" to assert a right to bow his head during prayer.[43]
  27. Wikipedia has an entry on "Gun Politics in the United States" that falsely claims that "Gun politics as a political issue dates to the earliest days of the United States."[44] It shows a statue of a Revolutionary Minuteman carrying a rifle as "proof" of its claim! Wikipedia's entry is astoundingly biased, concealing how guns deter crime and refusing to cite John Lott, the leading expert whose studies support guns.
  28. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is listed under the category "Propaganda films", alongside other conservative documentary films.[45] However, the lying, deceitful films of Michael Moore and other liberals are never described as "propaganda".
  29. Here's another example of why Wikipedia is declining: it locked its entry about Richard Dawkins to censor one of his quotes, despite being verified with a reference.[46] Perhaps the atheists on Wikipedia don't want people to learn what Dawkins really said! After criticism here, Wikipedia eventually unlocked the entry.
  30. The body of the Islamic terrorism[47] page opens with "Islamic terrorism" is itself a controversial phrase while the body of the Christian terrorism[48] page opened with Juergensmeyer wrote, "It is good to remember, however, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity - like most traditions - has always had a violent side." [49]
  31. Wikipedia has an extensive entry on "Creation myth".[50] Describing Creationism as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage Christians, and although the Evolution satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
  32. Wikipedia's entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain for human life. Quotes such as "Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person" were removed as being "POV",[51] despite appearing in the like-minded New York Times.[52] A week after this criticism,[53] an editor restored the former quote.[54]
  33. Predictably, Wikipedia insists on a completely biased, one-sided, negative entry about the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, and then locked the page to prevent balance from being included.[55] In characteristic fashion, Wikipedia misrepresents the views of those it dislikes, and uses smears (like "conspiracy-theory," a favorite Wikipedia epithet) to demonize them. Also in Wikipedia-style, it quotes liberal newspaper opinions as though they are fact, but ignores, downplays or censors opposite published opinions (e.g., by National Review).
  34. Wikipedia described the People for the American Way, which is a liberal advocacy group,[56] as a "progressive advocacy organization"[57] and did not mention the term liberal in its lengthy description of it until well after this deficiency was first mentioned here.[58]
  35. On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information[59] from the Wikipedia entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.[60] The editor then predicted on Conservapedia that the liberal bias would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.[61]
  36. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows.[62] But within hours liberals on Wikipedia completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about Hollywood Values, in order to censor examples of how the liberal ideology harms people. (This deletion occurred on Feb. 15, 2008; the deleting administrator considered the page to be "vandalism".[63] After the first deletion, another Wikipedia user re-created the "Hollywood values" article as a joke with just this sentence: "Aw, whine, why can't Andrew Schlafly's perspective be told here??? After all, he runs the Trusworthy Encyclopedia!!!</snark> Sorry, please don't block me."[64]
  37. Wikipedia's entry on conservative Ron Paul smears him with unsubstantiated statements (newsletter "issues gave tactical advice to right-wing militia groups and advanced various conspiracy theories"[65]), misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction![66]
  38. The Wikipedia entry on conservative Rick Scarborough falsely claimed that he said that HPV, a sexually transmitted disease, is God's punishment for sexually active young women. Wikipedia admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
  39. Wikipedia entries contain liberal claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Michael Farris states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to conservative leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,[67] but its citation for that liberal claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's television ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."[68]
  40. Wikipedia's pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous conservative entries, such as that of pro-life scholar Mary Ann Glendon.[69] For nearly two weeks her entry on Wikipedia has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group. Liberal editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass conservatives to remain for a long time.
  41. Wikipedia allows countless entries flattering obscure liberals, but lacks many entries about leading conservatives. For example, the Wikipedia entry on pro-life leader Judie Brown was previously nothing but a redirect[70] to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.[71] A proper page for her has since been added[72].
  42. As far as Richard Dawkins title of professor while at Oxford, Wikipedia fails to mention Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's contention that the special terms of the endowment for the position might have allowed Dawkins to bypass the peer review promotion process customarily required before receiving the title of "professor".[73] Rabbi Boteach stated a decree by Oxford seems to imply this.[74]
  43. Wikipedia's entry on Richard Sternberg has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed intelligent design paper that he reviewed.[75] In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
  44. Wikipedia has a strong bias against the Discovery Institute, a prominent proponent of intelligent design. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism[76] and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism[77]) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
  45. Wikipedia displays a similar bias against the Institute for Creation Research and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the ICR Graduate School, first in California and now in Texas, relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.[78][79][80]
  46. Wikipedia's entry on the Prodigal Son devotes more words to obscure rock band and liberal media references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.[81]
  47. Wikipedia's gossip and policy allowing edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.[82] The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.[83]
  48. A user named Richard Dawkins apparently edited his own article on Wikipedia,[84] and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating Wikipedia's favoritism towards liberals, it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)[85] for anybody to confront this well-known atheist for this conflict of interest, despite being against Wikipedia's own rules.
  49. Arbitration Committee member Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to Michael Moore, whose official website published attacks on a Wikipedia editor with an open invitation to vandalize Wikipedia Michael_Moore and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's propaganda. Even that which supports my own position." [13] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", Bauder responded, "Not at all." [14] Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder Jimbo Wales allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[15]_note-0 The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank."[16]
  50. Wikipedia heavily promotes liberals in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on Boy Scouts v. Dale, a conservative Supreme Court decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"[86] Wikipedia eventually removed that liberal promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.[87]
  51. Wikipedia has once again deleted all content on the North American Union [17]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
  52. Wikipedia has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"[88] a term that is an idiotic mockery of the Christian faith. Wikipedia calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-Christian mockery. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
  53. The Wikipedia article on Eritrea refuses to concede that Eritrea is a one-party state.[89] Another example of Wikipedia liberal bias: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
  54. Wikipedia often inserts bias by downplaying a liberal outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that liberals forced Larry Summers to resign as president of Harvard because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.[90][91] But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on Wikipedia implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.[92]
  55. Wikipedia welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly liberal. Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
  56. Wikipedia has two million entries, but not one for liberal. Users who go to that term are redirected to the Wikipedia entry on liberalism that conceals the liberal support of gun control and taxpayer funding of abortion, and liberal censorship of prayer in public school.[93]
  57. Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".[94] The word "deceit" has no entry on Wikipedia. It was redirected to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.[95] Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on deceit here.
  58. Wikipedia promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the sanctity of life). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,[96] and Wikipedia's entry about Zerah Colburn ended with a claim that his distant nephew committed suicide.[97] After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on Wikipedia. In yet another example, Wikipedia has an entry for "suicide by cop"[98] to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide.
  59. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included:
    • pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[99]
    • anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[100]
    • the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[101]
    • conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[102]
  60. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Additionally, as of August 5, 2008, the Dravecky article no longer mentions anything about JBS.[103] Wikipedia left intact the smear against the AAPS. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then reinserted before being removed again.[104]
  61. Wikipedia's last sentence on Human Life International claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a conservative group. But this was approved by Wikipedia and remained for over a month.[105]
  62. A devastating critique of Wikipedia by Fox News describes the impact of Wikipedia smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.[106]
  63. Smears in Wikipedia's entry on U.S. Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.[107]
  64. "Larry Sanger, who founded Wikipedia in 2001 with Jimmy Wales only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the Wikipedia community 'had no respect for experts.'"[108]
  65. Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about Thad Cochran,[109] a conservative Republican member of the U.S. Senate, smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
  66. Wikipedia smears prominent Christian conservatives, including James Dobson and D. James Kennedy, with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".[110] The term was made up by liberals and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these conservatives with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.[111] This edit [18] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so. The Eagle Forum article now has a "criticism" section that alleges various associations with theocracy and dominionism citing various left-wing opinion web sites, but none of those sites even says that Eagle Forum supports theocracy or dominionism. One editor was blocked just for trying to fix it.
  67. Wikipedia's entry about the anti-Christian and anti-Semitic H.L. Mencken praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with fundamentalist Christianity."[112] After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."[113] Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.[114]
  68. Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters[115] and its champion Zach Johnson,[116] who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his faith in Jesus Christ for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attribution to Jesus Christ was included, but with the Wikipedia trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.[117]
  69. Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[118] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[119] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.[120] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that.
  70. The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society[121] attempts to smear unrelated conservatives who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and George W. Bush should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes McCarthyism???[122]
  71. Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"[123] How about a new slogan: Wikipedia: well, duh!
  72. Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."[124] At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."[125]
  73. Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."[126] "A worldwide view" is fictional liberal terminology for globalists.
  74. Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.[127]
  75. Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.[128] Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."[129]
  76. Liberal icon Bertrand Russell receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."[130] After 7,700 words about Bertrand Russell, Wikipedia finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that Communism is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."[131]
  77. April 24th was the anniversary of Operation Eagle Claw, which was President Jimmy Carter's failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia entry explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia entry omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.[132] In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
  78. Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe[133] omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."[134] After this criticism was posted here, an editor at Wikipedia added Monroe's Cumberland Road Bill opposition to the article,[135] but the article still has yet to mention that Monroe was politically conservative.
  79. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[136] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[137] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[138] See also liberal quotient.
  80. Wikipedia awarded "good article" status[139] to a biased description of liberal Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."[140] Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.[141] Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
  81. One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing Wikipedia statistics. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.[142]
  82. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[143]
  83. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[144]
  84. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[145] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[146] But no credible historian makes such a claim.
  85. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.[147]
  86. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[148] But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[149] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[150]
  87. Wikipedia editors who are agnostic or atheistic outnumber Christian editors 2:1.[151] This make them nearly 8 times as atheistic as America (in a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know). Also, a Wikimedia page surveying the religions of Wikipedia editors, showed a greater number of atheists using pages to ridicule Christianity.[152]
  88. The Wikipedia entry for the Voting Rights Act contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.[153] This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
  89. Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist Edward Teller promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".[154] In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the Manhattan Project and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
  90. Wikipedia's entry for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[155] The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
  91. There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalist bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[156] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
  92. Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[157] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.
  93. Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in Dover[158] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[159] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[160]
  94. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."[161] That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
  95. Edits to include facts against Evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.
  96. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."[162] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".[163] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.[164]
  97. Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.
  98. Wikipedia claims about 2.9 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[165] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
  99. Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about Indentured Servitude is massive, but it omitted any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."[166]
  100. 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 reject the theory of evolution,[167] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.[168] Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. 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 ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
  101. Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here.[169] Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
  102. The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
  103. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.
  104. Wikipedia's article on Feudalism is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.[170]
  105. Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, William Donald Schaefer, contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.[171] 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
  106. Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article previously spelled his wife's name incorrectly. The article was in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006[172] and until it was corrected on January 26, 2007 [173]. No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
  107. Wikipedia's entry for the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.[174] Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,[175] and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
    Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
  108. Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on Henry Liddell illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.[176] That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.[177]
  109. Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the Encyclopedia Britannica, wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
    "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."[178]
  110. Bob Schmidt observed on the Illinois Review:[179]
    I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
    I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
    They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
    In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
    Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
  111. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[180]
    "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[181] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
  112. Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist John Lawrence Seigenthaler was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in USA Today, concluding with the following:[182]
    When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
  113. What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler afterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:[183]
    "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
  114. The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."[184]
  115. Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the Daily News relied on it in this story:
    "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
  116. Wikipedia's entry for Johnny Appleseed, a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.[185]
  117. Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes and a column in the Washington Times.[186][187][188][189] [190][191] and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.[192]
  118. Wikipedia's entry for "Right to bear arms" mentions the discrepancies many have with the interpretation of the phrase. They begin by labeling the first section "Military service definition" and go on to explain how the words "bear arms" had a different meaning a couple hundred years ago in European countries. After the 7 paragraph section that has little relation with the Second Amendment of the United States, Wikipedia offers 2 paragraphs that talks about the "Insurrectionary Theory". First thing, they call people that adhere to this concept "extremists" and attempt to prove why this viewpoint is false. The criticism was strangely missing from the military service section. So, in short, Wikipedia believes that the faultless, liberal "definition" is true and the sketchy, extremist, conservative "theory" is false.[193][194]
  119. Wikipedia is sexist? Definitions of antonym words don't match up:
    1. Matriarchy is a term, which is applied to gynocentric form of society, in which the leading role is with the female and especially with the mothers of a community.[195]
    2. Patriarchy describes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men and boys are dominant over those of women and girls.[196]
  120. Wikipedia's article on Jeremiah Wright repeatedly has material referenced from the New York Post and the conservative news website, Newsmax, removed citing them as unreliable sources.
  121. Wikipedia's single article on American conservatism has only a vague definition in its one-sentence lead section.[197] Wikipedia has two extensive articles on liberalism in the United States; they use a combined 800 words in their lead sections, which are comprised of quotes from liberal politicians and claims that the stances of today's liberals "may be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded".[198][199]
  122. For a period of time (January 4, 2008[200] - April 5, 2008[201]), Wikipedia's page on Tobacco and health had a disclaimer in the pipe smoking section that stated three references (The American Cancer Society, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the National Cancer Institute) might not be reliable resources and should be reviewed.
  123. Wikipedia's main article on Communism does not mention any act of genocide in Communist countries, and any attempts to edit the page to include this information are deleted. The Nazism page, however, includes multiple mentions of the Holocaust. The only mention of communist genocide is buried deep within the article structure for Communism.
  124. The Meta.Wikimedia.org site, that governs all modifications to databases maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, recently denied an application to place Conservapedia on its Interwiki Map—this although Wikimedia maintains an interwiki link for EvoWiki. In their discussions, the administration accepted some frankly puerile and self-serving contentions that Conservapedia was a POV-pushing site, and ignored the testimony of multiple witnesses that EvoWiki did the same thing.[202]
  125. The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"[203][204] and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.[205][206][207][208][209][210][211]
  126. Wikipedia has an anti-American, "blame Bush" view of the USA under his administration.[212] Liberals want it to appear that Bush acted alone in his decisions. On the George W. Bush page under the section 'Foreign policy', President Bush launched the War on Terrorism", "President Bush launched the invasion of Iraq" and "which President Bush viewed as..."' No mention of the (111) Democrats who voted with George W. Bush.
  127. Wikipedia's presidential template for George W. Bush is a sterile presentation of his life and presidency[213], but the template for Barack Obama is filled with non-notable, forgettable fluff such as links to articles about songs about him, a list of artists who support him, a Super Mario-type video game based on him and a list of places named after him.[214] (Note that there is no mention on Wikipedia of George W. Bush Elementary in Stockton, CA.[215])
  128. In the article for flood geology[216], the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"[217] while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."[218] Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"[219] and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").[220] Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"[221]
  129. The Carrie Prejean article on Wikipedia is carefully crafted however, major points tend to end with a liberals last word. 'Photograph controversy' last line quotes "go beyond what the Miss California pageant says are appropriate, and do not benefit Prejean's status." The section 'Crown retention', last line says- "she no longer believes in the organization," referring to a pageant official. The page is locked from mentioning other contestants who also had photos questionable under pageant rules. The last line of 'Miss USA 2009 controversy', plug the candidate for governor of Ca. and same-sex advocate SF mayor Gavin Newsom beliefs, supports Prejean. Wikipedia's non family-friendly presentation is complete with text of Hilton's foul-mouthed tirade.[222]
  130. Wikipedia's purity ring page is hopelessly biased against the concept. 573 characters describing the purity ring. Criticisms of purity rings- 1475 characters with three references. How does Wikipedia educate their readers when they only discredit purity rings? [223]
  131. The scope and depth of racism prevalent on Wikipedia is despicable. Over a thousand pages that include the ethnic slur 'Nigger', many in the page title. [19]
  132. Wikipedia deleted 9/12 Candidate page (twice) due to lack of notability[224]. Creator blocked because his real name does not meet username policy[225] and editor (me) blocked[226] for spam/advertising and "conflict of interest, which is introducing a severe bias to your edits".
  133. VoteVets.org is a partisan political organization that seeks to elect Democrats and to replace Republicans in Congress. Wikipedia's erroneous entry labels the liberal group a "non-partisan" political action committee. [227]
  134. Just like the liberal-aligned MSM, Wikipedia is consistent when hiding unflattering information about their fellow liberals. Wikipedia purposely buried an important statement from Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the now-infamous "Wise Latina" remark. One has to scroll through 49,600 characters of a 54,000 character page to find the statement. Also, Wikipedia does not mention her membership in La Raza, a group that has promoted the distribution of driver's licenses to illegal aliens, amnesty programs for illegal aliens, and the non-enforcement of immigration laws [228]
  135. Wikipedia feels that the Barack Obama article should omit any mention of William Ayers and the Weather Underground. Wikipedia's mobocracy has decided that you, the public, have no need to learn about Obama's past relationships that made national headlines. No mention of Obama's ties to ACORN either. [229]
  136. Wikipedia's Template:Infobox and elsewhere still maintains the fiction that Barack Hussein Obama was a "Professor of Constitutional Law," whereas White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has flatly denied Obama ever taught constitutional law. [20]
  137. In Wikipedia's page on the ABC's docudrama The Path to 9/11, the page contains a section titles "Controversy and criticisms," which contains 19 sub-sections to support it, while the section titled "Controversy: support for The Path to 9/11" only contains four, despite the fact that the controversy was sparked by pro-Clinton liberals that failed to see the fact that the two-part miniseries criticized both Bush and Clinton administrations leading up to 9/11 and that writer Cyrus Nowrasteh stated that many of their consultants on it stated that the docudrama went easy on Clinton. It also fails to note John Ziegler's documentary on the censoring of the docudrama Blocking the Path to 9/11 [21], which contains interviews with many people on the topic, and points out how the MSM liberals and Clintons have smeared it so much that it has destroyed it from ever being shown on TV or being sold on DVD in the near-future. [22]
  138. Wikipedia provides a large page of information regarding the Winter Soldiers story however they never mention that the people involved fabricated events, were caught lying, were doing it to push a liberal anti-war message. A section lists the fact that Congress investigated the matter. However it does not list the outcome- falsehoods, fabrications and outright lies to weaken the U.S. military as it was engaged with fighting the Communist North Vietnam. [23] [24]
  139. One of Wikipedia's barnstars—given nominally for World War II writing contributions—is in fact an American flag desecrated with Nazi and Soviet Union graffiti.
  140. Wikipedia's Nidal Malik Hasan article fails to mention any connection to Obama's transition government. Hasan's associations are clearly exposed but Wikipedia can't label Hasan a terrorist. He is just a shooter, not a massacre. [25]
  141. In relation to the Wikipedia article on Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Wikipedia mentions terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic countries, imams and Taliban but nowhere will you find the word "Muslim terrorist" nor "Islamic terrorist". [26] That is a key point that liberals want to hide from the public. [27] The very same can be said for Wikipedia's wikinews item Failed bomb aboard Delta flight article. [28]
  142. Wikipedia's Communism article omits to mention that millions of people have perished as a result of the Marxist ideology. Near the very end of the article they mention "alleged by some scholars to be responsible for famines, purges and warfare resulting in deaths." The article states "classes are abolished" "oppression-free society" and policies made "democratically" without mentioning those positions are really just propaganda. [29]
  143. Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. As Dr. King Jr said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." [30]
  144. Wikipedia will zealously guard what is said about liberal politicians. But any smear or false accusation of conservative politicians is immediately promoted on their pages as guilty. As is the case with John Edwards. His scandal was known for over a year, since 2007, before the mainstream media decided to cover it. Wikipedia claims in their article "Mainstream media in the United States have chosen not to report this incident, or the allegations that led to it, which Edwards has previously denied." Yet, they did not mention that repeated attempts to add that information was removed by Wikipedia prior to July 28, 2008. [31] In addition, many criticisms of Edwards have not made it into Wikipedia such as he used well-wishes to Elizabeth regarding her re-occurrence of cancer to solicit email donations to his Presidential campaign.
  145. Although against their own policy Wikipedia allows Liberals such as voiceover actor D. C. Douglas, who under the name of Lance Baxter, called Freedonworks and referred to their workers and supporters as "mentally retarded," and asked what happens after one of their "members does actually kill somebody." A sys-op "protected" the page deleting any mention of Douglas' controversial actions and statements. [230]
  146. Wikipedia has an unexplainable love for supporting Irish liberals and almost completely ignoring Northern Irish conservatives by calling Londonderry by it's unofficial slang name "derry"[231] and by marginalizing the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland by claiming it's "unofficial" and often calling it derogatory names such as "sectarian rag" which go unpunished[232]. Unlike Conservapedia which always use the correct names for things and does not tolorate any derogetary liberal hatred or cave into peer pressure.
  147. The liberal mobocracy fails to understand what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Wikipedia attempts to smear the Tea Party Nation by claiming the organization "actively censors political speech", without providing any references to backup the claim. [32]
  148. Wikipedia reveals in its article "CIA activities in Iran" that "Khomeini's coup was engineered by Britain to get a better oil contract renewal and by the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment....these two resourceful parties were able to direct the CIA in this task while keeping President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives."[233] Although largely harmless in its embrace of similar pseudoscience and hysteria (Saddam, Khomeini, and Osama have all "allegedly" been CIA agents since their early twenties, according to Wikipedia's fringe articles--the really obscure ones apparently evade the notice of 90% of its editors); it is worth noting that in this particular instance, repeated attempts to remove the offending content have been made and rejected, on the grounds that the assertions are "well-sourced info."[234] Beware, ladies and gentlemen, of what you may uncover when plumbing the seemingly endless depths of Wikipedia's inanity.
  149. Wikipedia also claims that the war cost 1.5 to 2 million Cambodian and Laotian lives; in reality, Wikipedia later admits to a mere 600,000 dead in Cambodia, and 30-50,000 in Laos.[235] The 600,000 figure may have been invented by Pol Pot himself and is 2 to 3 times the real number of war-related deaths.[236][237][238] NOTE: Wikipedia may have moderated its fabricated statistics at the present time.
  150. It adds, on Cambodia, that "after five years of savage fighting that brought about massive casualties, the destruction of the economy, the starvation of the population, and grievous atrocities, the Republican government was defeated on 17 April 1975 when the victorious Khmer Rouge proclaimed the establishment of Democratic Kampuchea."[239] As noted, their casualty figures are extreme fabrications based on Khmer Rouge propaganda; Cambodia, far from facing starvation, exported food every year prior to the Communist take-over and had plenty left to spare besides.
  151. The same article adds: "thus, it has been argued, that the US intervention in Cambodia contributed to the eventual seizure of power by the Khmer Rouge." Declassified documents from the Soviet archives reveal that the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1970 was launched at the explicit request of the Khmer Rouge and negotiated by Pol Pot's second-in-command, Nuon Chea.[240] The Communists had the American equivalent of 4 million armed and organized troops overrun two-thirds of the country prior to any American bombing. Vietnam later admitted that it "played a decisive role" in bringing to power the Pathet Lao in Laos and Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.[241]
  152. Wikipedia's "Fall of Saigon" article states that "according to the Hanoi government, more than 200,000 South Vietnamese government officials, military officers, and soldiers were sent to reeducation camps."[242] According to independent sources, the actual number was well in excess of one million.[243]
  153. Wikipedia lies by omission: "In the North, thousands of landowners were murdered by the communists and famine broke out in the 1950s. In the South, Diem went about crushing all opposition and tens of thousands were jailed or killed; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." In fact, there were only 30,000 prisoners of all kinds in South Vietnam;[244] several hundred thousand were killed in North Vietnam in the fifties.[245]
  154. Wikipedia's "Communism in Vietnam" contains the following sentence: "Unlike the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists did not commit a "blood bath" [after 1975]."[246] In fact, they killed 400,000 to 2.5 million South Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians after the fall of Saigon.[247]
  155. Wikipedia also makes the following claim: "in January 1980 the US started funding Pol Pot while he was in exile."[248] The source is John Pilger, who had to pay "very serious" libel damages for promulgating the fantasy;[249] the US-backed rebels of Son Sann engaged in extensive fighting with the Khmer Rouge.[250]
  156. Wikipedia refers to the "freely elected" Arbenz regime in Guatemala being unjustly overthrown by the CIA;[251] Guatemala's official 1999 truth commission confirms that Arbenz actually murdered hundreds of his opponents.[252]
  157. Wikipedia notes that: "the Contras form of warfare was "one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.""[253] However, attempts to mention Sandinista human rights violations were dismissed as "irrelevant allegations,"[254] even though they killed exponentially more people.[255]
  158. Wikipedia refers to an apparently fabricated interview claiming that the US armed the Afghan rebels prior to the Soviet invasion as a reliable source;[256] in fact, there is no reference to it in the American edition of the magazine in which it allegedly appeared and the only source available for it online is an obscure left-wing blog;[257] declassified government documents reveal that the aid was purely humanitarian in nature and that it specifically excluded weaponry;[258] and Carter officials reacted with shock to the accusation.[259]
  159. Although the Free Republic is (correctly) not allowed as a source on Wikipedia; the Srbrenica massacre denying[260] hate site ZNet is regularly used as a source--as is the neo-Nazi blog[261] CounterPunch.
  160. On July 28, 2010, the United States was listed as a "belligerent" fighting on the side of Iraq in Wikipedia's "Iran-Iraq War" article.[262] On July 15, 2010, Ronald Reagan was listed under "commanders and leaders" as a commander of Iraqi forces, alongside Saddam Hussein and his thugs.[263]
  161. Wikipedia's George W. Bush article says: "Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan."[264] In reality, based on the findings of Iraqi hospitals and morgues, the Iraqi government estimates that 150,000 Iraqis died in the war, with only 1-2% of those deaths being at the hands of US troops, and the rest by the insurgency they were combating.[265] The American army in Iraq has taken three times as many casualties as it has inflicted on Iraqi civilians in collateral damage.[266] Although Wikipedia may insist that these numbers are there only to help unbiased viewers consider the Bush legacy, there is no mention of the fact that the US invasion of Afghanistan saved millions of Afghans from starvation,[267][268] or that the lives of 112,000 Afghan children and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women have been saved every year since due to improved healthcare resulting from the invasion (by UNICEF figures).[269]
  162. A Wikipedia administrator that obsessively edits all article pertaining to the Indochina wars--"YellowMonkey"--is a Vietnamese admirer of Ho Chi Minh who emblazons his user page with a hammer and sickle as well as Communist slogans in Vietnamese.[270] He sends warnings such as "Kissinger supporter on the loose" to other editors whenever accurately sourced data is inserted into an article.[271]
  163. "Radical Right Wing" derogatory labels
Take a look at the WP article for the John Birch Society and associated discussion page on Wikipedia, regarding the labeling of the JBS as being "radical right-wing". Any attempts to remove "radical" are quickly reverted by the liberal gatekeepers, and the editor warned or banned. Now take a look at the article for Code Pink. (considered by many as "radical left wing"). Any attempts there to label them as a "radical" group are quickly removed, and the editors again banned or chastised by liberal watchdogs.

So the label "radical" is perfectly acceptable to describe a tame right-wing outfit, but is unacceptable to describe a left-wing group that has used radical tactics.


The issue seems to be because there is an descriptive article where liberal gatekeepers are responsible for "defining" what "radical right-wing" means, but not a matching one that has been successfully created for "radical left-wing", where Code Pink would likely fall. There is only a more tame "far-left" to use, which stops short of radical left-wing tactics--CenterRight 19:33, 31 December 2010 (EST)


See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion


See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Anti-Christianity

Conservapedia smears

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservapedia smears

Conservative personalities and politicians

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Conservative Personalities

Global warming

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming


See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Homosexuality

Liberal Politicians

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Liberal Politicians


See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Obama

Science and Evolution

See Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution

See also

External Links


  1. When Wikipedia eventually added mention of Loughner's nihilism, its edit summary omitted reference to the term. [1].
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#cite_ref-33
  5. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263357766
  7. http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/il10_kirk/Kirk_Completes_Reserve_Tour.html
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=263472629
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=268845790
  10. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.article
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&oldid=272320979
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&oldid=274813568
  13. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association#Criticism_and_controversy
  14. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU#Controversial_stances
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)
  16. Thanks much to a student in our American History course for pointing this out.
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Proposition_8_(2008)#DOMA
  19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
  20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
  21. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinochet
  22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro
  23. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fidel_Castro&oldid=235182888
  24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil
  25. See HPV Vaccine
  26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/baraminology
  27. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Profanity&oldid=227187296
  28. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Edwards
  29. For example, Wikipedia does mention the liberal New York Times' poorly-researched allegations that John McCain had an affair [2] in spite of the fact that the NYT's own ombudsman said there was "no proof" the story was true.[3]
  30. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/07/28/wikipedia-disallows-any-mention-alleged-john-edwards-scandal
  31. http://gawker.com/5029921/john-edwards-wikipedia-page-strangely-love-child+free
  32. http://conservativepulse.com/home/2008/07/edwards-sex-scandal-still-hasnt-surfaced-in-the-mainstream-press/
  33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
  34. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127
  35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills
  36. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
  37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative
  38. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criticism&oldid=225325117
  39. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda
  40. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Riddle
  41. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Schumer
  42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
  43. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Brunswick_Public_Schools#Controversy
  44. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States
  45. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Propaganda_films
  46. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=next&oldid=162688862
  47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism#.22Islamic.22_terrorism
  48. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Racism.2C_Sexism.2C_.26_Terrorism
  49. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Theological_justification_of_Christian_violence
  50. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
  51. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=200849646&oldid=199494933
  52. Paul Zielbauer, Princeton Bioethics Professor Debates Views on Disability and Euthanasia. The New York Times: Oct. 13, 1999
  53. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=443352&oldid=443152
  54. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Singer&diff=209935940&oldid=209392718
  55. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
  56. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507060931.asp
  57. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_For_the_American_Way
  58. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_For_the_American_Way&diff=198768678&oldid=195716955
  59. The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[4]
  60. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826
  61. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310
  62. Such as the entry on D'oh
  63. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Hollywood+values&year=&month=-1
  64. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Huw_Powell&oldid=226552177#February_2008
  65. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&oldid=183792833
  66. The page was locked from January 8 to August 6, 2008. [5]
  67. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris
  68. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141
  69. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon
  70. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no
  71. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League
  72. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judie_Brown
  73. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html
  74. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/rabbi-shmuley-responds-to_b_100275.html
  75. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg
  76. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism
  77. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
  78. Institute for Creation Research by Wikipedia
  79. Schafersman," Steven. "The Institute for Creation Research and It's (sic) Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education." Texas Citizens for Science, December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.
  80. Bergman," Jerry. "The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College." Revolution Against Evolution, May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.
  81. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son
  82. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838
  83. http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html
  84. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins
  85. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins
  86. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 liberal list by Time magazine).
  87. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale
  88. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ
  89. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea
  90. http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt
  91. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html
  92. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers
  93. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no
  94. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_(album)
  95. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history
  96. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451
  97. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_(math_prodigy)&oldid=147253074
  98. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop
  99. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803
  100. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808
  101. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
  102. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640
  103. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=225907517
  104. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&diff=156607328&oldid=156100194
  105. [6] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.
  106. In addition to the Fox News report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[7]
  107. http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2
  108. http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794
  109. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)
  110. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
  111. See, e.g., D. James Kennedy
  112. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken
  113. Ibid.
  114. http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp
  115. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament
  116. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732
  117. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson
  118. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
  119. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7
  120. "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604
  121. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society
  122. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
  123. Wikipedia ultimately deleted its entry after it was critized here
  124. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")
  125. Ibid.
  126. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance
  127. http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/
  128. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba
  129. Cuba
  130. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
  131. Bertrand Russell
  132. Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."entry
  133. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe
  134. James Monroe
  135. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Monroe&oldid=226448821#Presidency_1817.E2.80.931825:_The_Era_of_Good_Feelings
  136. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444
  137. Based on a comparison of how many users are under categories Liberal Wikipedians with those in Conservative Wikipedians. Both categories were deleted on Aug. 10, 2007 as editors have argued that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" among other reasons. However, the userboxes for users to declare themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" have been allowed to stay. Wikipedia's own records show, as of July 28, 2008, that far more users choose the "liberal" userbox than the "conservative" userbox.
  138. "Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, such that no liberals would equate to zero liberal bias. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for liberals to conservatives.
  139. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles
  140. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_(San_Francisco)
  141. Jill Tucker, "Student Successes Defy Urban Trends" San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).
  142. Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[8]
  143. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)
  144. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics
  145. http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm
  146. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
  147. Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[9]
  148. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm
  149. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood
  150. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
  151. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion
  152. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion
  153. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act
  154. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller
  155. The version criticized above; the note left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the current version.
  156. This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act
  157. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers
  158. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
  159. Id.
  160. Id.
  161. Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia
  162. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  163. Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
  164. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history
  165. Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.
  166. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992
  167. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
  168. Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia
  169. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof
  170. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
  171. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer
  172. John Tower, revision as of Jan 25
  173. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&offset=20070208110937&limit=20&action=history
  174. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act
  175. http://www.909shot.com/
  176. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell
  177. http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
  178. http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp
  179. http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html
  180. http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html
  181. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2
  182. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
  183. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3
  184. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars
  185. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed
  186. http://www.nysun.com/article/29080
  187. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Sudden+Jihad+Syndrome
  188. http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp
  189. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome
  190. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome
  191. http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080102/NATION/203823370/1001
  192. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome
  193. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Military_service_definition
  194. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms#Insurrectionary_theory
  195. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy
  196. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy
  197. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States
  198. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
  199. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States
  200. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&oldid=182111544
  201. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tobacco_and_health&diff=203433685&oldid=202851436
  202. <http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interwiki_map&oldid=1032322> (permanent link)
  203. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268
  204. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244
  205. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640
  206. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798
  207. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166
  208. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633
  209. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801
  210. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410
  211. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954
  212. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
  213. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:George_W._Bush
  214. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama
  215. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22george+w.+bush+elementary%22+stockton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
  216. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
  217. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood
  218. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood
  219. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808
  220. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331
  221. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740
  222. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_Prejean&diff= Wikipedia- Carrie Prejean
  223. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purity_ring&diff= Wikipedia- Purity ring
  224. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9/12_Candidate
  225. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacob_F._Roecker
  226. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WashingtonIsBroke#User:WashingtonIsBroke
  227. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VoteVets.org&diff=293037611&oldid=293035975 VoteVets.org
  228. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sonia_Sotomayor&diff=302177838&oldid=302177614
  229. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=302499449&oldid=302497807
  230. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D._C._Douglas&action=history
  231. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonderry
  232. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_C_of_E&diff=354377823&oldid=352220232
  233. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran
  234. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CIA_activities_in_Iran
  235. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_civil_war
  236. Marek Sliwinski, Le Génocide Khmer Rouge: Une Analyse Démographique (L’Harmattan, 1995).
  237. Heuveline, Patrick (2001). "The Demographic Analysis of Mortality in Cambodia." In Forced Migration and Mortality, eds. Holly E. Reed and Charles B. Keely. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
  238. Banister, Judith, and Paige Johnson (1993). "After the Nightmare: The Population of Cambodia." In Genocide and Democracy in Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge, the United Nations and the International Community, ed. Ben Kiernan. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies.
  239. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_civil_war
  240. Dmitry Mosyakov, “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda (Yale Genocide Studies Program Monograph Series No. 1, 2004), p54ff. Availible online at: "In April-May 1970, many North Vietnamese forces entered Cambodia in response to the call for help addressed to Vietnam not by Pol Pot, but by his deputy Nuon Chea. Nguyen Co Thach recalls: “Nuon Chea has asked for help and we have liberated five provinces of Cambodia in ten days.”"
  241. The Economist, February 26, 1983; Washington Post, April 23, 1985.
  242. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_saigon#Aftermath
  243. Orange County Register (29 April 2001)
  244. Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 1978), pp294-5.
  245. Robert F. Turner, Vietnamese Communism: Its Origins and Development (Hoover Institution Press, 1975);Gerard Tongas, L'enfer communiste au Nord Viêt-Nam (Nouvelles Editions Debresse, 1960).
  246. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_in_Vietnam
  247. Rummel, Rudolph, Statistics of Vietnamese Democide, in his Statistics of Democide.
  248. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinski,_Zbigniew#Cambodia
  249. The Guardian, UK, July 6, 1991.
  250. The Far Eastern Economic Review, December 22, 1988.
  251. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala#1944_to_present_day
  252. “Antecedentes Inmediatos (1944-1961): El derrocamiento de Arbenz y la intervención militar de 1954,” in Comisión para el Esclaracimiento Histórico (CEH), Guatemala: Memoria Del Silencio (Guatemala, 1999), Capítulo primero.
  253. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions#Nicaragua_1981-1990
  254. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history
  255. Roger Miranda and William Ratliff, The Civil War in Nicaragua (Transaction Publishers, 1993), pp253-4; West, W. Gordon. "The Sandinista Record on Human Rights in Nicaragua (1979-1990)" http://www.reds.msh-paris.fr/publications/revue/pdf/ds22/ds022-03.pdf (PDF). Réseau Européen Droit et Société. Retrieved 2009-03-30.
  256. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions&offset=20100903012333&action=history
  257. The interview has been republished by Alexander Cockburn's neo-Nazi CounterPunch website, but was first posted online here: http://www.proxsa.org/resources/9-11/Brzezinski-980115-interview.htm
  258. They can be seen here: http://www.activistmagazine.com/images/stories/government/carter_79-1581.jpg and http://www.activistmagazine.com/images/stories/government/carter_79-1579.jpg
  259. The Nation, November 12, 2001.
  260. Kamm, Oliver, Chomsky's Outlet's
  261. Harry's Place, "CounterPunch," http://hurryupharry.org/2005/02/27/counterpunch/
  262. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=375898707&oldid=375895692
  263. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War&diff=368133799&oldid=368122576
  264. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy
  265. http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp
  266. http://www.aina.org/news/2007110894701.jsp
  267. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42858-2001Dec30?language=printer
  268. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=24019
  269. New York Times, February 1, 2002.
  270. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey
  271. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fifelfoo#Kissinger_supporter_on_the_loose

Guidelines for inclusion:

  • Each entry must include a diff which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
  • Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
  • Please post the content to the appropriate sub article if possible. I (ctown200) am still working on breaking this article into sub topics. It's taking me too long!