Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
Wackypedia (Wikipedia) prefers 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 and try to censor anything Christian? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly.
The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give any credit to Christianity.
A Wikipedia editor who posts and edits under the names \"Nearly Headless Nick\" and the fake \"Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington\" apparently deleted the entire Conservapedia entry on Wikipedia. His own user page says he \"died on October 31, 1492 and is the resident ghost of Gryffindor tower.\" Wikipedia is controlled by editors like these?!
Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English users are American. Look up \"Most Favored Nation\" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling \"Most Favoured Nation\", even there there are far more American than British users. Enter \"Hapsburg\" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been \"Hapsburg\". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.
The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred.
Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia. Conservapedia avoids these like a true encyclopedia.
Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.
Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.
Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about \"Moby\" and \"song\". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia.
The Wikipedia entry for John Peter Zenger gives an incorrect date for his important trial: 1734, instead of the correct 1735. The Wikipedia entry also links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of \"Philadelphia lawyer\", which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in \"even the most minute aspects of the law.\" Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later.
For its entry \"indentured servitude,\" Wikipedia erroneously claims it occurred in the 16th century, when it was actually the 17th century. And Wikipedia omits any reference to Bacon\'s Rebellion, the key event in the history of indentured servitude.
Wikipedia has many entries on \"concession\", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism).
Within days after someone posted an entry on Wikipedia about Conservapedia, an ugly notice of potential \"deletion\" (censorship) was posted on the top of the website. Then a half-dozen anonymous critics demanded the the entry be deleted. Their same arguments would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries, but they did not complain about those other entries. The entry about Conservapedia remained defaced throughout the \"debate\". This comment in support of Conservapedia summed it up:
The reasons cited here for immediately deleting \"conservapedia\" are pretextual. Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries. But those demanding deletion of this entry do not complain in the same way about the other entries. Instead, they demand that this particular entry be deleted. Simply put, nothing except political bias justifies defacing this entry with the \"speedy delete\" notice. This entry is not defamatory or offensive and it is obviously noteworthy and useful to many people. The lengthy debate here is strong evidence that the entry should remain. It will receive far more visits than tens of thousands of other entries that remain.
How many other conservative entries have been censored by Wikipedia editors?
Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not take steps to reduce bias or provide balance. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of evolution,[1] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.[2] Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it. Gresham\'s Law reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
