Difference between revisions of "Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(65 Findings of Bias)
(Wikipedia's inability to teach)
Line 648: Line 648:
::::::::I did this before. The result was that Wikipedia's articles tended to be much longer and more comprehensive. However, Wikipedia's had a sizeable head start, it's been argued and a longer entry isn't necessarily better. Some of the Wikipedia articles are more verbose than strictly necessary. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:51, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I did this before. The result was that Wikipedia's articles tended to be much longer and more comprehensive. However, Wikipedia's had a sizeable head start, it's been argued and a longer entry isn't necessarily better. Some of the Wikipedia articles are more verbose than strictly necessary. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:51, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. [[User:Order]] 31 July 22:25
::::::I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. [[User:Order]] 31 July 22:25
::::: The real test of an "encyclopedia" is how clearly and concisely it explains something to an inquiring student or adult.  Any objective evaluation of Wikipedia entries in terms of their ability to teach has to give Wikipedia an "F".  I know that may sound harsh, but as a teacher who once used Wikipedia entries in a course, I see that as the inescapable, and unfortunate, conclusion.
::::: The famous, widely publicized comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica a few years ago missed the most important measure of an encyclopedia:  its ability to educate in an efficient manner.  While the publicized report claimed that Wikipedia was superior to the Britannica in terms of accuracy, in fact there is no question that Britannica is infinitely better than Wikipedia in its educational value.  But that news report, which bordered on defamation, ignored that key measuring standard and as a result destroyed the Encyclopedia Britannica.  The loss is everone's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
<small>"And keep in mind that '''''your''''' pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse."</small> Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --<font color="#0001CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAE">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
<small>"And keep in mind that '''''your''''' pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse."</small> Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --<font color="#0001CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAE">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 14:29, 31 July 2007

! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5

Johnny Appleseed

Yeah, I just read the article at Wikipedia, and I've not seen anything along the bias that this refers to. The story about the preacher was showing that Johnny was very much a person who took his Christian beliefs very seriously. The date of his death is officially contested and this contention is mentioned in the article. There is nothing that smacks of "bias" as this page indicates. I will take out Johnny Appleseed in 24 hrs if there is no argument. ChairmanMeow 12:44, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has responded to a number of our examples of bias after we have presented them. That does not mean that we cannot mention past incidents as examples of the general culture and outlook of Wikipedia. DanH 12:49, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Consider updating the reference links in these cases to show the revision of the wikipedia article as it was at the time maybe. Amahony 12:32, 16 June 2007 (EDT)


Again, this isn't bias. If it had been an FA, that would have been one thing, but GA is not quite the same level of recognition. This list is getting more and more ludicrous. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 21:00, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't follow you here, Linus the Turbogeek. But can I call on you if I have technical computer questions? :-) A good Easter to you.--Aschlafly 21:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Um… you can't call me, but feel free to send me e-mail. A happy Easter to yourself as well. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 20:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal bias

The list contains still the statement that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public", which still makes every statistician frown at conservapedia as soon as he looks where we get the data for Wikipedia from. A self-selected sample, with 131 categories, from which respondents can choose as many as they like, is compared to a Harris poll.

The other innovation of this example of Wikipedia bias is the definition of liberal bias; it now even has its own article as Liberal Quotient. This article will make every mathematician frown, and it demonstrates that LQ is highly confusing. The article defines the LQ as Liberals/Conservatives, which has its own problems, but the illustrative part is that the article does not even once uses the definition of LQ correctly. None of the LQs mentioned in the article for particular groups, such as journalists, uses LQ correctly. It was never correct since it was created by Aschlafly. And if you look at the talk page you'll notice that most editors aren't able to apply the definition correctly either.

My suggestions would be 1) get a solid data base, since it it obviously a violation of good practice in statistics. 2) use a definition of liberal bias that people understand, now that it has been demonstrated, that the current definition is poorly understood. Order 9 April, 18:40 (AEST)

In addition, 3:1/1:2≠6. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 20:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually 3/(1/2) is 6. This is the correct part of it. You proabably mean 75%/33%? That is indeed something different and 225%. This just illustrates that the Liberal quotient is plain confusing. Order 11 April, 11:00 (AEST)

The Deluge criticism

As a Christian I can understand the criticism in which the Great Flood is treated as a piece of myth, or if you go to the Great Flood it will take you to the Deluge section: but what you have to realise is that the Great Flood can be seen in nearly all mythologies, for example, Dylan in Welsh and Atlantis in Greek. Therefore, the Noah account is part of wider scope, yet, it can be said that the Great Flood in all cultures could be the account of the same flood that Noah escaped in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James M Hayes (talk)

James, have you seen Conservapedia's article on the Great Flood? It covers the sorts of things you talk about, without using the word "myth" (or any derivative) at all (except in the external links). Philip J. Rayment 12:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


"Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases." OK, but this page cannot be edited. Isn't that just as bad? Sterile 16:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Nooooo. this is entirely different in a way, I'm unable to explain to you. --Cgday 16:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

A page that has been removed cannot be read, this one can. That's a pretty obvious difference, I would think, and one that I had no difficulty explaining. Philip J. Rayment 22:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Wasn't Conservapedia's Examples of Bias in Conservapedia removed as well? Myk 23:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm, yes there was such an article that was deleted. But it was removed on the grounds that it was a rant with obscenities. Philip J. Rayment 01:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And then deleted and then protected against further re-creation? Myk 01:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
It was created and deleted twice (with the second version apparently being a copy of the first version), so presumably it was thought prudent to prevent the same thing being done over and over. Philip J. Rayment 01:49, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Myk, we allow a great deal of criticism of our site here, far more than Wikipedia allows. I was not involved in the deletion of that particular entry but over time, as this site becomes more stable and secure against vandalism, that page can be reopened just as others have been.--Aschlafly 02:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia allows unlimited criticism. It contains an article about Conservapedia that includes many of Conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia. It even has a 106-source article entitled "Criticism of Wikipedia" that Wikipedia users wrote themselves. I criticized this article on this talk page, and my comment (along with many others) was deleted. If you aren't a liar, Aschlafly, then you are breathtakingly delusional. It would have been just as easy to remove the obscenities then protect the article.--Mechrobioticon 23:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
The "Criticism of Wikipedia" entry is a self-serving joke that censors any real criticism. I put in factual statements of bias in the Wikipedia and my factual, respectful statements were distorted and then censored.--Aschlafly 00:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
How many sources does this page cite? It would appear wikipedia is more exhaustive in criticizing themselves than Conservapedia is at criticizing Wikipedia.--Mechrobioticon 00:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
Wow, is that the test you're proposing? Simply count the number of citations, no matter what they say? That does seem consistent with Wikipedia's philosophy. As shown by the content page here, Wikipedia makes a factual claim and then provides a citation that actually fails to support the claim at all.--Aschlafly 01:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Which has sometimes occurred at Conservapedia as well, of course... Dpbsmith 16:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Hasn't that logic been used before on CP? The Theory of Evolution article is touted as being the best because it gets so many hits and has so many citations, but if you took a second to read the talk page you'd see otherwise. I don't know what "factual" statements Andy added, but if they're anything like the bias listed here, of course they were removed since they don't meet the mainstream definition of bias. Jrssr5 16:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm a specialist in analyzing and remedying bias. Please bring any examples to my attention. --Ed Poor 12:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

"Wikipedia is six times as liberal"

Isn't it time to do something about this? Whether or not the numbers are correct isn't for me to say, but if there are twice as many conservatives as liberals in the US, but three times as many liberals as conservatives on Wikipedia, then there must be about 2.27 times as many liberals on Wiki as in the US, not 6. The statement as it stands suggests that we don't know basic math, and I for one find that slightly embarrassing. --AKjeldsen 12:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Quiet you fool! Don't you realize that if you argue with ASchlafly's math that it means you're wrong about everything? If he says that the Wikipedia is 108% liberal then it must be so!--Rex Mundane 15:26, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
It's approx. 2.25, and that's not how "liberal bias" is defined. Stop being an idiot, Aschlafly. --Hacker(Write some codeSupport my RfA) 20:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
You can think about it this way. If your data is correct, then if you were to walk down the street and grab 6 people, statistically you should get 2 liberals and 4 conservatives. At wikipedia, you should get 1.5 conservatives (statistically speaking) and 4.5 liberals. 1.5 times 3 equals 4.5, and 1.5 plus 4.5 equals 6. Divide 4.5 by 2, and you get 2.25. And Hacker's right, "bias" refers to the articles themselves, not to who wrote them. Being mostly composed of liberals is not an example of bias.--Mechrobioticon 00:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh, I'm going to be really really really sorry I ever mentioned this, but you can also think of it this way.
Accept for argument Andrew Schlafly's assumptions—(which I most bodaciously do not accept)—that America is conservative, 2:1 and that Wikipedia is liberal, 3:1. Now, imagine conservatives at Wikipedia encircled by and trying to fight off liberals, and ask: for every pair of conservatives, how many liberals on average must they vanquish in order to prevail? The answer is every pair of conservatives needs to subdue six liberals. Now ask the same question for America. Here, the answer is that every pair of conservatives only needs to dispatch one liberal. Ergo, at Wikipedia the conservatives would need to work six times as hard. QED. Dpbsmith 11:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I can't read Andy's mind, but I doubt that is how he arrived at his magic number of 6. Creative thinking though!! Jrssr5 16:21, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the critical point that is missing here is that Wikipedia is not an American institution. It is a global one. Thousands of the English articles are not written by Americans. Why else would there be such comprehensive information about cricket? It has no need to represent America, nor should it. Any argument that Wikipedia should reflect America is evidence of severe tunnel vision and likely xenophobia. User:RWest 15:34, 24 July 2007.

Wikipedia is not 6 times more liberal than Conservapedia. The actual number is exactly 2Pi or about 6.28. I thought it might be 6.66, but that would be too much to hope. NPOV 18:03, 24 July 2007 (EDT)


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 [a] story

What does this have to do with any bias on the part of Wikipedia, and more to the point, in what way is any such bias shown, in this case, liberal? --Olly 05:52, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Newspapers are known to have a liberal bias also, and hence the copying from the liberal Wikipedia is noteworthy.--Aschlafly 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Um, no. Some newspapers lean left, but there are plenty of newspapers that endorse a conservative position. Quite a few (if not most) of the papers in my area are pretty conservative actually. ColinRtalk 16:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
What does any liberal bias in the written press (LOL) have to do with whether Wikipedia has a liberal bias or not? Number 47 simply is not an example of bias in wikipedia. You may think it's "noteworthy" but so what? It's listed as an example of bias in Wikipedia. I think that counts as deceit.--Olly 09:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Newspapers definitely have a liberal bias. I remember The New York Times stating once that a certain celebrity (who shall remain nameless) was pregn*nt. I would have much preferred a picture of the celebrity with a stork superimposed. NPOV 18:06, 24 July 2007 (EDT)


That shouldn't be there, surely, as it is simply someone saying Wikipedia is biased, rather than an actual example of bias. --Protocletos 14:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

It quotes an insightful remark by an authority. That's what good encyclopedias do.--Aschlafly 16:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't dispute this, but the fact remains that it's not actually an example of bias. --Protocletos 11:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

What the heck…?

I'm sorry about this, and I'll get to work on MediaWiki and stay out of trouble for a while after I have my say, but how is criticism of articles without a worldwide viewpoint a "bias"? Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and yes, America is not the only English-speaking country around, so it can't claim ownership of even the English edition. --Liπus the Turbohacker(contact me) 13:09, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the criticism means that Wikipedia places an excessive emphasize on the "worldwide viewpoint", often to the exclusion of US views such as conservatism. It's one thing to say what everyone in the world thinks, another to try to homogenize it into one "consensus" view. (See pluralism vs. particularism - or until those are written, multiculturalism.) --Ed Poor 13:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Suggested edit

Could globalist be linked to Globalism. Has that anything to do with Globalization? Auld Nick 13:16, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Link added. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 14:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules

It saddens me to see that people feel that it is OK to criticize a project that they have not even read most of the rules of. Yes, Wikipedia says that it is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, and is NPOV. Of course it is not NPOV yet, but someday could be. Most of these criticisms (well over 70%) are based on ignorance of Wikipedia rules. There are 42 policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I doubt most people who are writing these criticisms have bothered to read any of those, except for the introduction. And the unbelievable hypocrisy of deleting and protecting a page called Examples of Bias in Conservapedia is sickening. So yes, if anybody was to go and read the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they will see that these criticisms are completely unfounded (well, most of 'em). --Hojimachongtalk 14:01, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Hoji, the criticisms are based on the results, and the Wikipedia rules really have very little to do with this. The rules themselves encourage bias (e.g., "NPOV" towards terrorists) or the rules may be applied against conservative edits (e.g., initially against the entry on Conservapedia). And then there are the criticisms about the rules don't say, such as the Wikipedia rules do not prohibit obscenity, gossip, or pretending liberal opinion is fact.
A study of bias doesn't really care what the rules or cause is. The study is about the results. But thanks for your comments and Lord bless you for your efforts on Wikipedia and here.--Aschlafly 14:30, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
And, ignorance is bliss ... it's much easier to blindly criticize something instead of trying to study/investigate the reasons. Jrssr5 15:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Apparently not easy enough, as some people (including Jimmy Wales himself) still pretend that Wikipedia does not have bias.--Aschlafly 15:26, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Time for my response (sigh); First of all, Jimmy Wales admits that it has a bias; he would be ignorant not to. But it is obvious that articles are much better now than they were a year or two ago. It's clear that great strides have been made towards not having a noticeable bias. And you say criticism is based on results? The stated goals of a project dictate what will be considered "good" and "bad", and most of the criticisms here are empty in their factual backing. Also, the "NPOV" towards terrorists is more neutral than calling them just "terrorists", no? Groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, LTTE, etc. aren't usually referred to as "terrorist", because they are seen as legitimate freedom fighters by huge chunks of the Arabic and Western world.
Groups like al-Qaeda are still described as terrorist organizations in the introduction, since a larger group of legitimate sources consider them to be terrorists.
And "pretending liberal opinion is fact"; Liberal opinion is rarely represented as fact, but liberal reports with factual backing is reported with more legitimacy. That's what the WP:RS guideline exists, to make sure reliable sources are used. I think you mean liberal pontification on facts represented as facts; that's what WP:CSB is trying to fix. And may I refer you to look at our very own Theory of evolution article, where there are 14 blockquotes from sources who have very little authority to be talking about evolution. Let us remember that 99.84% of scientists support the evolutionary theory. How are those 14 blockquotes, along with many, many, many AiG references not "conservative opinion is fact"? --Hojimachongtalk 16:23, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
What study? User:Order May 14.
Hojimachong, the problem here is that wikipedia only "officially" follows the principles of neutrality , "No original research" and "reliable sources". The reality is that all those "policies" are little more than unenforced facades (since when do left - wing propaganda rags like the New-York times, the Guardian and the rest of them count as non-partisan or reliable?). Wikipedia provides the mechanism by which extremist cabals (mostly of the far-left persuasion) can infest articles related to politics, religion, history and spirituality with a very partisan far-left bent, and they aggressively edit-war (even recruit admins to their revert-gangs and persuade them to abuse their powers in the gangs' favor). While the technical articles on wikipedia may not be so biased (except for the articles on so-called "evolution", which is now a politicized issue), the articles on all the topics I mentioned suffer from a systemic bias hidden between the lines of apparent neutrality. The way I see it, conservapedia takes a different and more honest approach, addressing systemic bias by admitting to it and working within it's constraints. That is far more intellectually honest than the left-wing nutcases on wikipedia. Giskard Reventlov 00:57, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Jewish encyclopedia

There's no need for scare quotes around the Jewish encyclopedia, it just looks like we're either ignorant or accusing Wikipedia of being anti-semitic. The Jewish encyclopedia is a real work, and often cited for things relating to Judaism. link to the Jewish encyclopedia. RDre 12:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

The quotation is accurate. The quotation marks inform the reader that the term was expressly used by Wikipedia. I don't see how removing the quotes would be more informative or more accurate. Wikipedia is specifically and expressly complaining about its own use of "the Jewish Encyclopedia."--Aschlafly 13:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You should remove the quote marks. They are not found in the Wikipedia link, and as the earlier poster has already noted, the Jewish Encyclopedia is real. Nor was Wikipedia targeting Judeo-Christian tradition. The passage in question dealt with the wholesale copying of information from works that have entered the public domain--27102340 13:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This new entry seems to imply that American lives are more important than the eyes of anybody else in this world. What is bad about trying to get more coverage on articles which deal with the deaths of many more people? --Hojimachongtalk 18:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Hoji. Why is point 1 on this list phrased as if to say that Conservapedia believes the death of 3000 Americans is more important than the deaths of 400,000 Sudanese? Is that really the Conservative perspective?
In support of RDre and 27102340, how about replacing ...Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia." with the full list 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Nuttall Encyclopaedia, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and other older encyclopedic works? I don't know if the 1911 EB was regarded as a "Christian encyclopedia" at the time, or now. --Scott 08:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
I considered that replacement, but most people don't realize that the Nutall Encyclopedia and the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica were Christian encyclopedias.--Aschlafly 14:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Proposed cahnge to #23

Can we change #23 to this

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. To remove the problem of ias in censorship in Conservapedia edits to the theory of evolution page aren't allowed in the first place."

Or maybe just delete it?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Igor nz (talk)

Chip Berlet

I think perhaps the article should elaborate more on the Chip Berlet bias thing, particularly since Berlet himself has a wikipedia account, and aggressively edit-wars in tandem with extremist leftist cabals on wikipedia (see his contribs). Giskard Reventlov 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Interesting. Please tell me more, perhaps with some examples. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--Aschlafly 00:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Well there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread (particularly his pet peeves like Dominionism). His primary emphasis on wp seems to be against the LaRouche types, but he frequently whitewashes extremism on the part of the left by mischeviously attributing it to the right. For instance, in New Anti-semitism he blames the leftist antisemitism on some imagined association between the extremist left and the far-right movements in the United States, an assertion that is entirely without foundation (and not a view widely held by numerous advocacy groups combating left wing antisemitism, such as the Stephen Roth center and others). Plus, left-wing antisemitism is a global phenomenon, and it amuses me to think how the prevalence of antisemitism of the Communist Party of India (say) would connect to some Neo-Nazi skinheads.
I'm sure there are other examples if people dig deep enough. Giskard Reventlov 01:25, 21 May 2007 (EDT)


May I suggest that we globalize our focus just a tad here? The extremist liberal and anti-conservative bias of wikipedia is relevant to the politics of numerous countries in Europe and Asia as well as the United States. admittedly the problems there are less high-profile than the US-related articles, but the liberal bias in many non US-related articles are far more extreme and frequently delves into partisan references, racialist stereotyping and scapegoating, rabid support for Islamism, and other such positions characteristic of the far-left radicals.Giskard Reventlov 00:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that is a superb point. I've suspected as much, because often there will be less resistance to the bias in non-US articles. Lord willing, let's expose this bias and please post specific examples here that I can incorporate in the entry. Thanks.--Aschlafly 00:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Whinny Article

Wow, what a whinny article. It has almost no truth to it, and most of it is greatly exagerated in the most obscene way. It needs to be rewritten or completely removed in my opinion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrDubya (talk)

Notice how many people make sweeping criticisms, but don't offer any specific problem that needs fixing? Philip J. Rayment 04:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
  • Notice how cranky Karajou and TK made it a quiet evening, Philip? 6 hours of quiet. If you are still around in another couple of hours, the user might need another time out, I am thinking..... --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 04:35, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

All those examples of bias on the content page, and "MrDubya" (what a ridiculous user id.) can't find a single error!--Aschlafly 09:52, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

TK: Telling MrDubya to shup up was not a very intelligent way to respond to his comment (while not well backed up has some relevance), and was quite unprofessional and rude. Humunculous 11:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

numbers 18, 21, 22, 37

Pardon my questioning, but isn't number 18's claim that "But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages" incorrect? There is an official Wikipedia content disclaimer which says that the site may contain objectionable content. This is linked to from every page through the general disclaimer.

number 21 doesn't point out that Wikipedia isn't itself implying the idea that Jesus never existed, but rather that other people have implied such an idea. This seems to be evident in the phrasing quoted, and fails to mention that Wikipedia sourced that statement [1] to show that some people have doubted his existence.

number 22 seems to be outdated, since the current revision when I checked says that "many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to [Christianity]"

number 37 is outdated, wikipedia has about 1.8 million articles now.

I don't mean to criticize, but if this is to be taken seriously, we should probably weed out errors or things which are outdated - otherwise, it might look like a bunch of random people smearing something they don't like, regardless of any weaknesses in Wikipedia which may exist. Aristotle 12:03, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Criticisms are welcome, and I've clarified the entry in response to your points as follows:
Point 18 is made stronger as the result of your link, which proves that Wikipedia does not warn about specifically images of sexual activities, pornography, or adult content.
Point 21 is unchanged, as Wikipedia does repeat an absurd claim of Jesus deniers. Would Wikipedia do likewise in a serious entry about the Holocaust, and give credibility to claims of Holocaust deniers? I hope not.
Point 22 is updated to reflect Wikipedia's backhanded reference to Christianity in its Renaissance entry.
Point 27, 1.5 was changed to 1.8. This does not alter the point here.
Thanks and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:11, 23 June 2007 (EDT)


Wikipedia now mentions that Johnson credited his victory to God. They have a footnoted source for it, too. -Masterbratac 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

But Johnson credited Christ. The liberals controlling Wikipedia apparently don't want to admit that.--Aschlafly 19:24, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

D. James Kennedy

Recently added to his Wiki article (here) is the information that he is a "supporter of intelligent design." This information was added based upon nothing more than:

1. An unbacked statement made by a far-left professor in an interview for the far-left Americans United for the Separation of Church and State [2],
2. A repeat of said professor's claim in a far-left book about Republicans alleged "war on science" [3],
3. The simple fact that he wrote the foreword for a book about design - no indication was given as to what either he or the book actually says,
4. A complete misrepresentation of Kennedy's sermons and TV show's special segments [4], and
5. Citing that his church's website sells materials on ID - a whopping total of four items (which is misrepresented as "a broad range" on Wiki), two of which are the same item in DVD and VHS [5] - while completely ignoring the many, many other items about Creation(ism) they sell [6].

That's it. That's the justification for claiming Kennedy is a supporter of ID. Ah, but if you can't prove a negative (a logical fallacy to start with) and provide a reference that states "Kennedy is not a supporter of Intelligent Design," then you have no basis for removing the false information from Wikipedia.

Admittedly, Kennedy agrees with IDers that the universe and life look designed, but his and their conclusions based upon that are completely different. Kennedy is a Bible-based. dyed-in-the-wool, 6-literal-days, 6000-year-old-Earth, life-created-as-is Creationist who points out that even though he and IDers agree about design, IDers are not Creationists. Why, if you were a supporter of ID, would you point out that IDers are not Creationists? This is the discernment that liberal Wiki editors who are enslaved to the rule of Wiki law lack (or force themselves to ignore).

And in the spirit of full disclosure, that addition to Kennedy's article is what drove me to leave Wikipedia. I argued against it (quite well, if I may be so bold) and got ganged up on by at least three liberal editors who used their combined efforts to "game the system" and dodge Wiki's "3 reverts rule." I watched my edits so as not to run afoul of the 3RR, but was still found in violation of it despite not having more than three reverts in 24 hours because I was watching my edits! (Someone explain that one to me.) Jinxmchue 00:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

I'll add this to the next update the Bias in Wikipedia list, probably tomorrow. Your comments here are right on target. I just returned from a conference where a leading ID scientist drew the same distinctions that you have. The liberals at Wikipedia no longer surprise me in their bias and unwillingness to accept basic logic. Welcome to Conservapedia, where logic is respected.--Aschlafly 00:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Midge Potts

A cross-dressing man who has not undergone conventional hormone therapy and has not had sex change surgery is referred to as "she/her" on Wikipedia because he "identifies as a woman." I confronted this liberal nonsense here with no liberals being able to successfully counter my arguments. Still, the article has been continually reverted to the version with female pronouns. Jinxmchue 00:41, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Outdated "Missing Facts" articles

It seems that most of the things on this list are merely complaints about what used to be missing from Wikipedia articles. The point of user-generated project like Wikipedia, after all, is that when a mistake or an omission is noticed (say, the lack of commentary on indentured servitude in the Bacon's Rebellion article), the person who noted it can fix the omission.

For example: There is no page on Conservopedia for the Armenian Genocide or Premillennialism, and the Giuseppe Garibaldi article is twenty words long. But nobody would jump to the conclusion that, because no one had expanded on the article, Conservapedia thinks that Garibaldi is historically unimportant.

Similarly: there are many statements of "bias" which are due to unnoticed vandalism, vandalism which was removed as soon as it was found. One can complain that Wikipedia needs more oversight, but there is a real difference between having idiots put up lies which simply went unnoticed, and a concerted effort to disseminate them. (It's also unclear to me how the "Liberal Agenda" is helped along by attacking Fuzzy Zoeller. Or by having lots of articles about Moby. But I digress)Nedlum 12:17, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

No, you misstate how Wikipedia works. Admins with special authority at Wikipedia review every edit and revert vandalism quickly. The instances cited here were approved by the Wikipedia authorities.
None of the instances cited here are mere oversights, or random vandalism. They are examples of the bias in Wikipedia editors and admins in presenting factual claims to the public. Just look at how long the cited bias existed before someone heard about Conservapedia's criticism and then made a change in response to criticism here.
Wikipedia allows and even encourages gossip, which we prohibit here. Wikipedia's use of gossip on Wikipedia does have a liberal bias, as numerous examples in this list illustrate.--Aschlafly 13:12, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Andy, to assume that every single edit is immediately checked over (sit here and watch how quickly they go by) is unrealistic. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 13:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Hoji, none of the examples in this list are vandalism. I don't think Wikipedia blocked any editor for these edits and typically multiple admins and editors saw and allowed these edits over an extended period of time. In the first example (Human Life International), the edit was by an IP address (unregistered user) to a controversial entry. That edit sticks out like a sore thumb even among a list of hundreds of recent edits. Yet it was allowed and I don't think the IP address has even been blocked for it.
If a Wikipedia admin speaking for Wikipedia says that one of these examples was vandalism and corrective action was taken (e.g., blocking the person responsible, posting an alert of some kind, locking the page, etc.), then I'll note that accordingly here. But that hasn't happened. More examples will be posted today. Lord willing, Wikipedia will do something to stop the injustice eventually.--Aschlafly 13:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)


I have to take issue with the statement about Jerry Costello. The exact quote from Wikipedia, as of July 8: "He has a pro-life voting record and has received favorable ratings from the American Conservative Union and the John Birch Society." They are merely stating the facts, no? Did they say he was a member of the JBS? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 14:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

It may also be a fact that the American Communist Party endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004. Should that be in Kerry's entry? Of course not. Inserting that into his entry would only be designed to smear him. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:13, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree. There's really no reason for Wikipedia to mention it, especially in a very short article. It could only be designed to make him look bad. Also, did the communists endorse John Kerry? Just wondering. SPierce 16:35, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
For the curious, the answer to your question could be provided in the entry on the American Communist Party, not the entry on John Kerry. But I doubt Wikipedia would smear Kerry like that anyway. The injustice is the campaign at Wikipedia to smear conservatives, and vulnerable people. Wikipedia is a bully, an unrestrained mob. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:44, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Call me dense, but I just read the CP article on the John Birch Society, and I don't see how it's a smear to associate someone with them (whether warrented or not). Anti-communist, anti-fascist, anti-UN, pro-Constitution, pro Founding Fathers... it might be a little libertarian for some CP users, but not a smear. So could someone elighten this poor soul? :) Jazzman831 16:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

I won't call you dense, but the point is not whether a highly informed and fair-minded reader would be affected by this smear, but whether an uninformed reader might be. Obviously the intent behind Wikipedia's guilt-by-association is to smear the victims in the eyes of the general public. Obviously the Wikipedia's false claims of association with JBS are designed to smear the victims with guilt-by-association.--Aschlafly 18:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
That's just it though; I am in uninformed, and I don't get how this is a smear. If Costello didn't actually get their support then sure, it's an untruth. I just don't understand how calling a conservative a libertarian is a smear, unless there's some sinister side to this organization which both CP and WP left out. Jazzman831 18:47, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Have you read the Wikipedia entry about the John Birch Society? It says that the "Society had been marginalized within the conservative movement since the 1960s." Read on, as the Wikipedia entry gets much worse. And then Wikipedia smears Costello, who has absolutely no connection with the organization, with the appearance of being connected with it. Wikipedia's insertion of JBS into Costello's entry is obviously designed to smear Costello. If you want to continue to deny it, then go ahead, but you would only lose credibility by doing so.--Aschlafly 21:04, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm definitely not saying that the statement is appropriate, but it is not a lie. However irrelevant it may be, it is still factual. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 22:39, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree that Wikipedia's smear of Costello is not a lie. But it is still an unjustified smear. Ditto for Wikipedia's smear of Fred Schwarz. The objection to the use of guilt-by-association is not that it is a lie, but that it is an unjustified smear.
The Wikipedia smears of Dave Dravecky and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are baseless and also out-of-date. Repetition of defamation is no better than the original defamation.--Aschlafly 22:54, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Math Error

I know this is pointless, because it's just gonna be burried.... but simple math will tell you that 99.84% of 50000 would be 49,200 People, leaving room for 800 dissenters.... Therefore, the 700 that support still leaves another 100... Now, it's probably true that more than 100 scientists beleive in evolution, but you can't claim bias off of guesswork SirJim 18:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't follow your argument here. Obviously when several hundred people sign a paper, that does not imply that millions who didn't sign it somehow disagree and are on the other side. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
No, it doesn't, but it doesn't imply that they are for it either. It simply states that they either have no opinion (doubtful) for that they choose not to enter debate. When using statistics as reasoning for an argument, you can't assume a positive or negative from data that isn't there. SirJim 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
No, failure to sign a petition does NOT imply a lack of opinion. It simply means the person did not sign the petition. The reason could be anything from too busy to "agree but don't want my name on a petition." Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:30, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
That's exactly what I said... either no opinion (doubtful) or choose not to enter the debate... However, as I said, statistics are effective in debate only when they're used exactly as reported. Therefore, according to the available data, Wikipedia is correct. Obviously, common sense tells that there are more scientists who support creationism, but only the available data can be used to make a logical point SirJim 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
For the record, 98.4% of 50,000 is 49,200. 99.84% of 50,000 is 49,920 leaving just 80 dissenters. Hope this helps. Learn together 03:25, 18 July 2007 (EDT)


Again, this will be ignored, but I looked at the Zach Johnson page, and found that it only contains one quote from him (about his getting better). However, if you look at TIger Wood's page, which is about 2 or 3 times as long, it doesn't contain any full quotes and only one "half quote" about the desert golf course. Furthermore, none of the master's pages have any quotes from winners or other placers SirJim 18:42, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

What's your point? Zach Johnson won the upset of the year, if not the decade, which he expressly attributed it to his faith in Christ. Of course that should not be censored.--Aschlafly 21:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
My point is that no censorship exists.... None of the golfers have personal quotes on the masters pages, and most golfers don't even have quotes on their own pages.... On top of that, I see no past version of the page where his religious quotes were included but removed.... If you think there's a problem with the page, at least try editing it before coming over here and screaming bias... Just put the quotes in and get a reason for the deletion (if it occurs) Then you have a legit case for censorship.... As it stands, I see none SirJim 07:36, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Sections for criticisms/controversies more often in articles for right-wing organizations than in left-wing

One can pick any of the well-known conservative groups from this Wiki category list and more often than not, you will find sections for criticism and controversies. Do the same for well-known liberal groups, such as "gay rights" groups on this list (since Wiki doesn't have a "Liberal organizations of the United States" cat), and you'll find it difficult to find any sections for criticisms and controversies. Additionally, if you do find these sections on articles for liberal groups, they are much, much smaller than what you typically find for conservative groups. More examples of this bias can be found using this mixed category list of political organizations. Jinxmchue 13:17, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Take a step back

I'm not trying to hide anything here: I'm from Wikipedia, and I don't like what you guys do here. If this is largely ignored, I won't be suprised or offended, but I have a question...

If Wikipedia is so biased, why run away from it, leaving it the way it is, to create your own version? Wouldn't it be infinitely more productive to help in the pursuit of a free encyclopedia by fixing the problems you see instead of seceding and forming your own faction?

Essentially, you see Wikipedia as full of liberals and have two choices:
1. Fix the bias you see;
2. Leave Wikipedia flawed and create your own flawed encyclopedia.

I mean, pages on Wikipedia are vandalized all the time with offensive, pointless, or unwanted material, and when people like me see it, we remove it and move on. We don't hole up elsewhere and complain about it. Reading some of these accusations of bias, I think to myself: why not fix it? I'm sorry liberal politicians have so little criticism; go find some! I'm sorry we ignored Johnny Appleseed's Christian whatever, add it!

It's not our fault that more volunteers are liberal in Wikipedia. Instead of stepping away, why not keep us balanced? We can work together; we can resolve our differences. If you want to talk, I'll check here. - Boss1000 21:30, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

The above is an insult to our intelligence, Boss Man.
In point of fact, every time we dare add the sort of edit you call upon us to add, people like your allies on Wikipedia take it down. As the histories will show, Boss Man, if you care to look.
And in other point of fact, Wikipedia has on it a number of entries that Conservapedia would never permit--entries, for example, on certain intimate practices that ought to disgust you or strike terror in your heart. I'd like to take those down--but I'd like to know how you or any of a thousand Wikipedia editors I could name would feel about that, mate.
So don't talk here about Wikipedia being open to criticism!
And while I'm on the subject, I'll thank you not to make any more of your complex claims. You see us as flawed? By what standard? As far as I'm concerned, your flaw is our standard of excellence.--TerryHTalk 22:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Very well put, TerryH. I might add that many Wikipedia defenders will hide behind "vandalism" to explain its liberal bias. But the 50+ examples of bias are not vandalism.

Wikipedia is a smear factory, a high-tech lynch mob. In addition to destroying people with smears and lies, Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children. Wikipedia boosts its traffic for its for-profit search engine by promoting gossip and obscenity. It is worse than the National Enquirer. No thanks, I don't want anything to do with it now.--Aschlafly 22:49, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Adding my own two bob's worth, when Wikipedia's Intelligent_design article was proposed for Featured Article status (or something like that), I opposed on the grounds of the bias in the article. Not only was my opposition rejected, as I expected, but there were threats to delete my comments as being trolling! Yet many people over the previous months had complained of bias in the article, and they were always slapped down, and in some cases banned. I even had another Wikipedian, a scientist, e-mail me and say that he disagreed with pretty well everything I stood for (regarding religion, evolution, etc.), yet he agreed with me that the article was biased, but that he had given up trying to fight the bloc of anti-ID people protecting the article. That's just one example of several that I could quote. Philip J. Rayment 23:36, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


Adding to Aschflays useless comments which are unsubstantiated, why do you feel you need to change everything by creating a new deeply flawed with hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Denzo (talk)

I invite you to rewrite your comment in a less abusive manner and without the spelling and syntax mistakes of that sentence, let alone the unsubstantiated charges. Philip J. Rayment 05:43, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

My apologies, but what did I do wrong exactly? I'm dyslexic and to be honest I think a very good job of reaching a good level of grammer despite my limitations.

Also, speaking of 'Liberal bias' I am after seeing the Che Guevara article that he is a Liberal activist! There is such a thing of 'factual bias' trying to make something to suit your argument. Anyone with half a brain will recognise Che wasn't a Liberal. He was a socialist with close ties with the Chinese regime. This is but one example of the complete hypocrysy of this site and the entire ideology you represent. Denzo 06:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Taking your last point first, admittedly I don't have half a brain (mine is complete), but I wouldn't recognise that he wasn't a liberal, simply because I know next to nothing about him.
But on to (slightly) more substantial points, the errors in your previous message are as follow (I've listed them all, but normally wouldn't mention most of these if they were the only error). I also accept that dyslexia may account for at least some of these:
  • "Aschflays" (a user name) is correctly spelt "ASchlafly" (I admit that I still have to look that one up most of the time).
  • "grammer" is correctly spelt "grammar".
  • "Aschflays useless comments" is being abusive; you could have written that more politely.
  • "...creating a deeply flawed with hundreds..." A deeply-flawed what? You've forgotten the noun that the adjectival phrase is supposed to be modifying.
  • What does "everything" refer to in "change everything"? I might ask about the evidence for the "hundreds of thousands of grammer mistakes", but I guess first I'd like to know what it is that you omitted that is supposed to have all these mistakes.
Philip J. Rayment 06:55, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough, its a bit rich when I go on about grammar mistakes. That taken into account, my original point still stands, pedantary aside. Denzo 07:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained what is "deeply flawed". Philip J. Rayment 07:50, 25 July 2007 (EDT)


Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children

Having spent a lot of time on wiki, and having looked up the reproductive articles, there is no pornography. Unless you consider educational diagrams pornography.

Oh right, you guys probably want to change science class because it refers to reproductive organs! I forgot! Denzo 08:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Denzo, answer me this: Since when do articles explaining in detail, with photographs, how ostensible adults (and, perhaps, teen-agers) can play "adult" kidnap games, qualify as "educational diagrams," or a fit subject for "science class"? Not to mention that the articles in question are lifted straight out of another Wiki that is devoted to that sort of sick, perverted game, and to teaching its readers how to play it!
We weren't talking about the reproductive articles--but we do observe that the very subject of human reproductive science has of late been the subject of vandalism, with a view to the introduction of pornography. We also observe that education in that area is subject to frightful abuse, and therefore deem it best handled in the home, from parent to child.
If you have a problem with that, then I suggest that you find another wiki--or establish one, since after all the MediaWiki software is free software and as such available free of charge.--TerryHTalk 08:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

You don't seem to mind it when they teach about plants reproductive organs. Not human ones though, its better to be ignorant than informed after all. Either we agree with educating children or we don't. Denzo 08:23, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Denzo, you still didn't explain what is "deeply flawed". Are you referring to Conservapedia itself? Philip J. Rayment 08:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. You cannot cancel a wrong and hope to make a right when you yourself go about it a wrong way. The aim is to make this place somewhere with a conservative bias. Would you prefer your children read something with any bias? I know I'd want my children to read the facts, and then make up their mind. Other people have deliberately placed bias for children to read - either it be the protocols of the learned elders of zion in Saudi Arabia or Hitlers textbooks downgrading the Jews to mere mathematical aliens. Do you realise you share a precedent with some of the most horrible regimes of the modern era? Denzo 08:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I would expect my children to read something with a bias, because a bias is unavoidable in many cases. But that doesn't prevent them reading the facts. You seem to think that facts and bias are mutually exclusive, but this is not necessarily so. In many cases it is impossible to present all the facts (they might even be infinite), and just the selection of which facts are presented is subject to bias. I have said before elsewhere that we have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. Do you think we should have that bias, or not? Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think you shouldn't. Take the homosexuality for starters. We need to decide what logic we use - the Scientific method or your pretty logic that allows you to discriminate when you feel like it - If its the former then you simply cannot, simply cannot even begin to comprehend how stupid it is to have homosexuality denounced on religious grounds.

I would rather my child read the facts about homosexuality - why people do it and what it is - rather than they read about the Bible's view. I don't care what the Bible's view and neither do the majority of the world. There are other examples, but the main reasons I decided to leave here:

  • A constant unwarranted attack on the Democrats, which besides your name makes you out to be partisans.
  • Che Guevara being termed as 'Liberal', I genuinly wonder if any of you know the differences between Liberalism and socialism.
  • The poor quality of a lot of the articles, like Sparta
  • The unbelievably humourous, yet worrying level of bias on this site, which infinitely outdo's any accidental bias wiki may or may not engage in. Denzo 09:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
You don't agree that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness? Where do you think our bias should be then? To inaccuracy and unfairness?
Okay, let's take homosexuality. Logic is logic; there's not such thing as "scientific logic" and "petty logic". And I don't discriminate "when I feel like it". And I don't denounce homosexuality on religious grounds. I denounce it on the grounds that the Creator of us designed us to be heterosexual. I consider that to be a fact. Do you have hard, factual, evidence that I'm wrong? I'd like to see it, rather than you simply dismiss it by labelling it as "religious".
I would also rather my children read the facts about homosexuality, but what makes you think that what the Bible says is not factual? The fact that you don't care what the Bible says is you showing your bias, not an argument from logic or science.
Philip J. Rayment 10:25, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

That makes no sense! You can believe that some giant cookie monster created the world in seven days, just don't enforce that crap on us! There is two different kinds of reasoning - there is no evidence to support your creation theory, so I will not teach my children that. The Bible was written by ancient Kings and propagandists - I would teach them that to widen their minds and inform them of the background, rather than teach them your 'literal' truths.


This is the kinda crap I'm talking about. Denzo 04:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

What makes no sense? And I don't believe in a "giant cookie monster" (actually, I don't believe in cookies; we have biscuits here in Oz :-) ). And I'm not forcing anything on you, am I? I'm expressing my view, just as you are. And just because you don't know of any evidence to support creation does not mean that there is none. I know of plenty. What evidence do you have that the Bible was written by ancient kings (apart from some some of the poetic books)? Is your belief on those things 'literal' truth?
I asked if you agreed that we should have a bias towards accuracy and fairness. You claimed that we don't have that, but that doesn't actually answer the question. Please answer the question. And while you're at it, stop shouting, it's not nice.
Philip J. Rayment 11:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias?

It strikes me that dedicated Wikipedia editors might seek to restore their image by rooting out bias. Hypothetically speaking, if an item on this list is later repaired by an editor so that it is no longer true, should it be forgiven and removed from the list, or kept as a reminder of past transgressions? --JonathanDrain 17:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

If the correction reflects bias, as in removing smears against Democrats but not against Republicans, then obviously that is another instance of bias. How about an unbiased commitment by Wikipedia??? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
And if the correction does not reflect bias? --JonathanDrain 18:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Sure, if the bias is cleaned up, then I'd love to eliminate the examples and reduce the size of this list, hopefully even to zero. But I'm not naive about the liberal bias at Wikipedia, and I doubt an unbiased clean-up effort is even possible there. Feel free to prove me wrong. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:31, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps other editors disagree with your stance. Some entries are written in past-tense, implying that Wikipedia has since cleared instances of bias from at least those articles. --JonathanDrain 04:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It isn't actually possible to reduce this list to zero, partially because of incomplete info and partially because some of the examples are past issues. Without getting into arguing about what's valid or not...

  • #3 has since been corrected.
  • #4 is unreferenced.
  • #5 has since been corrected.
  • #8 has been corrected. Twice.
  • #30 is no longer true as worded. (It may still stand as a criticism if rephrased.)
  • #34 is no longer true. That said, looking at a version from March 3 I can't find this call to participate in a political march. Am I missing it?
  • #35 is the description of a past sequence of events; it is uncorrectable.
  • #38 has since been corrected.
  • #42 is unreferenced.
  • #43 is no longer true; that article is now only in an eponymous category and a handful of maintenence/cleanup categories.
  • #44 has since been corrected; it even cites Conservapedia.
  • #47 has since been corrected.
  • #49 has since been corrected.
  • #52 has since been corrected.
  • #56 has since been partially corrected: the article now mentioned his daughter in the lead, wikilinks "double first" to explain it to unfamiliar readers, his time as Dean of Christ Church is now in his article (it was in the Christ Church, Oxford article), the grammatical error in the lead is gone, and the Britannica 1911 source is now made explict. His lineage is still described in detail.
  • #60 has since been corrected.
  • #65 doesn't have any references explaining when Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the current version have any such accusations.

There are seventeen examples on the list that have either been corrected or lack sufficient information to be acted upon. This is not including the criticisms that have been made by third parties (and thus persist even if they have been acted upon).

To say that Wikipedia is able to reduce this list by cleaning up the articles in question is a bit disingenuous. AManInBlack 06:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of deceit. The fact that hundreds of Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
    • Are you opposed, then, to Aschlafly's suggestion that in the unlikely event that Wikipedia manages to satisfactorily remove bias from an article referred to on this list, that its entry on the list may deserve to be forgiven in favour of focusing on remaining and future transgressions? --JonathanDrain 11:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I am confident that Sysop TK and everyone else here would welcome an end to the lynch-mob approach by Wikipedia, and we would let bygones be bygones if there is a real change there. That would entail an unbiased cleaning of the smears and errors and perhaps a rule change at Wikipedia to prevent recurrence.
Obviously that has not happened, and probably won't because of the intense liberal bias of the Wikipedia editors. In the above list of alleged corrections, only 3 out of the most important 29 examples have been corrected by Wikipedia. Two of those corrections were concerning powerful individuals, and thus may simply reflect Wikipedia's protecting its self-interest. So that leaves only one genuine correction out of 29. That's a far cry from a sincere effort by Wikipedia to stop its National Enquirer-stuff. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Out of interest, which are the most important 29 examples? Bronzefinger 12:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
You can't be serious. Try 1-29.--Aschlafly 13:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I was entirely serious. The list does not indicate that it is in order of importance, and it seems that new entries are added to the start of the list, so I assumed they were in roughly chronological order. Thanks for clarifying. Bronzefinger 13:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps what needs to be "worked on" is thinking like that shown above? Instead of just tackling the problem, the discussion is diverted by a need to rank which items are the most important! Surely one cannot believe that sort of obsessive need to become completely mired in endless discussions about the discussions, serves WP or its readers well? Wiki's (all wiki's), in general, seem to attract users who use debating tricks too much, and pay too little attention to doing what is forthright, IMHO. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 14:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Today's front page asks when Wikipedia will clean up its sixty-five instances of bias. I'm sure there's some overlap between Conservapedia editors and conservative Wikipedia editors, who would be more than happy to try and improve Wikipedia. What guidelines do you suppose Wikipedia should follow in order to absolve itself from this list of complaints? --JonathanDrain 15:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

  • What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates, I cannot see that happening. It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, secular progressive agenda, and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument and a series of arbitrations, panels, commissions and reviews, all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Many of these aren't even legitimate cases of bias. If #1 is, then Conservapedia is guilty of the same sort of thing on its Liberal hypocrisy page (linking John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them). A bunch are instances of past vandalism that have been corrected (ie #4, #34), though obviously the past cannot be undone. #6 is a legitimate criticism, but hardly an example of liberal bias. In #7 the instances are hardly comparable (the former being a news blurb for a day, the latter being a substantial issue that has been widely referenced, nor would I compare an illegal act with someone's sexual orientation). For a site that complains that Wikiepdia isn't concise enough (and I generally agree with that) there's an awful lot of criticism for not mentioning certain details (#11, #23). #32 is flawed, as it compares 8% athiests with 35% atheists, agnostics, seculars, etc., nor is the references Wikipedia page a stastically relevent scientific survey. #41 highlights an unnecessary detail included in a Wikipedia article, but if referenced is hardly "gossip" (and still not bias). The newspapers really have to take the rap for #63; no newspaper should use Wikiepdia, or any wiki (or probably any encyclopedia) for a source without backing up the claims elsewhere. They would have been rightly criticized for using Conservapedia as well. As for #45 (many of Wikipedia's articles having no educational value), I've come across many articles here that are too brief to really have any educational value at all. On top of that, the number of articles on pop culture here is growing rapidly (as I thought it would). I haven't even looked at most of the examples (and I'll get a bunch of a certain amount of legitimacy to them). If you're going to put this on your front page you should probably look into it a bit more closely. PortlyMort 16:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

  • As for "pop culture" articles, I delete many on sight, but you do have a good point. Comparing that particular thing, on a new wiki like CP, as compared to an established and mature one like WP, is a bit unfair, no? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 16:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Well, many comparisons are going to be inequitable. Wikipedia's more serious offenses (Seigenthaler, Zoeller) are due to its too big to completely police for cases of vandalism and malevolent edits. Conservapedia can do a much better job, being much smaller. As for pop culture, this brings up a question: what is Conservapedia's deletion policy? I haven't seen one. PortlyMort 16:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Historical Quote: "If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."-- Sir Winston Churchill --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I take it from the use of that quote that you don't have a deletion policy. And I take it from your other statement that sysops can delete at will any article that they feel is inappropriate. Fair enough. However, I don't think this policy (or lack thereof) is sustainable. As you clearly have some articles on pop culture and not others it seems only a matter of time before there is serious disagreement among sysops as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Eventually something will have to be hammered out that addresses these subjective descrepencies. While ten thousand regulations might be too much, I feel you will need more than 8. PortlyMort 19:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
    • Very true. If you have too many rules, how can you expect people to obey them all? --JonathanDrain 17:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about whether such-and-such points are right or not. My point is merely that it's disingenuous to say that Wikipedia can do anything to reduce the length of this list, since when corrections are made, the criticisms turn into "Well, you didn't fix it until we pointed it out." AManInBlack 18:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

  • Exactly so! So, if their policies were changed by Jimbo himself, that wouldn't be happening nearly so much, that long delay in righting wrongs posted as fact. The point is, the built in bias of the Adminsistrators there, too many cloned from the same idealogical POV, leads them to ignore such items, as they assume them to be correct. That is what a mob school of thought is. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

No, "ManInBlack", I've been clear that a sincere effort at reform by Wikipedia would result in deleting entries from this list. We hope and pray for that sincere reform. Obviously that has not yet happened, starting with example 1 here and proceeding to dozens of other examples. Isolated, biased corrections by Wikipedia, such as its acting in self-interest to remove smears of powerful people, is not sincere reform.--Aschlafly 19:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

What sort of sincere effort for reform would lead to the removal of #49 or #52? AManInBlack 19:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Hm, I've been thinking. Item #4 on the list refers to Fuzzy Zoeller, who sought to take legal action against the editor or editors who posted the smears, since it's the editor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for making the edits. This would suggest that it's only the editors who made the smears against "powerful people" who have anything to worry about, not Wikipedia itself. In that case, surely editing Wikipedia to remove smears on powerful people can only be in the interest of the editors who added those smears, not Wikipedia or the editors who removed them later on. Am I missing something? --JonathanDrain 19:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Folks, this discussion is getting tiresome. I've been clear already, and we don't waste our time here on frivolous chatter. Look again at our Point 1. Enforce Wikipedia's own rule against guilt-by-association and clean it up there. If you can't even do that, then please don't waste our time here. If you can do that, then do it and let's then efficiently clean up and remove the remainder. Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

The problem with Wikipedia is that it does not acknowledge its liberal bias. It is so concerned with achieving "consensus" on policy, that it forgets that it is not possible to have a consensus on facts. Originally, Larry and Jimbo agreed that Wikipedia would remain neutral when there is a dispute over what the facts are about anything. That eventually and gradually turned into allowing groups of users to create a "consensus version" of an article with a point of view which cannot be overturned.
The new policy is that even if an article has a POV, no one is allowed to create another article with a different POV - even if the sole reason the extra article is created is to fix the bias in the first article. The alternate POV can be "legally" suppressed: one can neither create an alternate article to describe another POV, nor can one wedge the alternate POV into the first article. This is how they perpetuate the bias in key articles such as theory of evolution (in favor), intelligent design (they're against it), and global warming (they insist there's a scientific consensus). --Ed Poor Talk 19:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the issue is that the title of the article is being confused with the subject. Many of the entires here are factual omissions or other problems that don't reflect bias so much as the potential for vandalism or simply the fact that Wikipedia isn't a complete project. The lead even acknowledges this; "silly gossip and blatant errors" aren't bias, and neither are unconscious omissions. (Otherwise, the absence of CP articles on figures like John C. Frémont, George Wood Wingate, Nelson W. Aldrich, and Thomas Edmund Dewey would establish that WP is more conservative than CP, which is plainly silly.)

It may be helpful to better organize this list, categorizing each entry (or ordering it chronologically, or dealing with it in prose instead of as a numbered list), so it isn't quite as much a grab-bag of randomness. Right now, it feels a lot like a nitpicky rant, and it's very difficult to sift through it to find a way to fix things (or even to tell what's new).

Many of the things on this list can (and generally have) been fixed uncontroversially. It would be helpful to make it easy as possible to identify points that still need to be fixed and/or are new and make it clear why they're a problem, if your genuine goal is to enact change on Wikipedia. AManInBlack 21:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Ah yes, that's the ticket. Excuse us, this article is still a work in progress. RobS 21:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Indeed, I'm not on any crusade to whitewash commentary on Wikipedia; I just want to use that commentary to is utmost. AManInBlack 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

ManInBlack, take a look at Point 1. If you can't or won't fix it on Wikipedia, then don't waste our time here.

You're like an apologize for a lynch mob who says something good about the mob. It's still a lynch mob hanging people.--Aschlafly 21:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't think I could make the case that associating someone with the John Birch Society is smearing them, I'm sorry. It's taken as assumed here that such association is a smear, with no real stated reasoning behind it. (I guess it's self-evident if you're familiar with the politics in that area?)
It's not as though I haven't looked at this list for things to fix; I fixed some of the Henry Liddell stuff, removed a bunch of ridiculous unsourced allegations from an article on TBN, and (while I didn't get the idea from here) I was the one who closed the final AFD that got rid of the disgraceful Brandt article.
I am broadly sympathetic to criticism of Wikipedia, and I try to act on it when I can. The organization of this list, with open and closed cases mixed freely, and different - often contradictory - problems scattered all over, does not lend itself to use.
It comes down to your goal. If your goal is to make Wikipedia look bad, mission accomplished. That a big, impressive-looking list and its nature lends itself to nothing on the list getting resolved ever because nobody can make heads nor tails of it. If your goal is to enact change on Wikipedia, then some organization would make it significantly more useful. AManInBlack 21:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Ok, here's some criticism you can fix: the link to the New American at Chip Berlet#Criticism of Berlet has been broken for two years and nobody's fixed it. I'd fix it, but they'd only add another year to my ban. And personally, I think they deliberately want the link broken. Here's why: It links to an article entitled Propagandizing the Police [7] which says this,
" Berlet published a column in Overthrow, an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)..."
Now considering this site says Yippies are a terrorist subsidiary of the National Lawyers Guild, of which Berlet was VP, it's not surprising he'd write for their journal. And what would happen to Berlet's status as the inhouse resident expert on politcal affairs, if it was discovered he was published in an extreme and terrorist publication?
So, beware if you dare fix that link, you will be a marked user, stalked and harassed, if your contributions do not tow the party line. RobS 23:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
So, um, what's the problem and why? AManInBlack 23:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
The text of the Berlet entry uses the John Birch Society's New American allegedly to give balance & criticism. The quoted text even puts Berlet at odds with the Anti-Defamation League. But when you click on the link to read the source document, the link is broken. The source document, Propagandizing the Police, cites Berlet as having written for extremist publications. I was banned likewise for using a different source that cited Berlet writting for another extremist publication (See Guardian, here in CP). If Berlet writes for extremist publications, he cannot be used as a source for anything other than his own organization, Politcal Research Associates. Yet Berlet literally authored the entire Dominionism series (look at the Template under "critics" [8] or you can check the contribs any page in the series).
IOW, Berlet cannot be cited for anything in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's attribution policies, written by SlimVirgin, which state, "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," a passage I [SlimVirgin] was the author of." 466
Oddly, SlimVirgin is Berlet's staunchest defender.
Oh, as to the smear in the Brandt entry, the neologism "conspiracist" has been documented to be Berlet's own invention. Berlet created Wikipedia's "Conspiracist" entry, and cited himself. Berlet called Brandt a conspiracist, so using his own neologism is another policy violation in the Brandt case (all this I called attention to ArbCom, Jimbo, and Foundation two years ago). The John Birch Society in WP is slandered with Berlet's neologism as "conspiracist." RobS 00:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Okay, short version. What link is broken, and where should it link? I'm not diving into all of this for your sake, but if there's a broken link, I'll fix that. AManInBlack 01:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Footnote 15 here [9] should link to this [10]. Good luck. RobS 10:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Right now, the link links to a New American article, so I don't see the problem. I'm not really comfortable digging deeper, as I know nothing about the subject matter. (This is part of why the list could stand to be better organized; I'm patient enough to dig through it for stuff I can fix; others may not be.) AManInBlack 00:32, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Yah but the link is broken, a 404 dead end page comes up. I provided the link to the cited article above. You're not telling me you're afraid of a bunch of Stalinists, are you? Stalin's dead, the KGB is defunct (moreless) and these people are just a bunch of bullies and wannabe's. So what if the ArbCom Chairman & Berlet go back 37 years [11] to that KGB front organization, the National Lawyers Guild, it's not like the old days where they'd arrange an accident for you or ship you off to the Gulag. All they can do is ban you. RobS 00:38, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
I don't make a practice of intervening in situations where I don't feel I can practically explain my actions. There's a difference between taking a risk of getting in a big fight because I honestly believe in the cause and doing the same on the frankly confusing say-so of someone else. I'm sorry. AManInBlack 21:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
Face facts. You're afraid of SlimVirgin.
What more evidence do we need, of WP high level Admins in the Cabal bullying people, promoting disinformation, and getting clones and cronies to coverup thier dirty work than your appearance here on this talk page? You've been presented the facts, and the evidence, yet refuse to do a simple maintance chore of fixing a simple broken link. RobS 15:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Number 1

The "guilt-by-association" charge seems to rely on the John Birch Society being a Bad Thing. Some people may think the JBS isn't a Good Thing; but on the whole, it seems, (to the well informed) a group of like minded individuals similar in message and scope as some other conservative groups. Being associated with it, even by simply being a member or having gained some measure of support from the society for a position or an act of some sort, doesn't seem to render one less desirable. U2 15:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I am old enough to remember the JBS back in the sixties. Since then, I haven't found it particularly in the forefront of "Conservative" groups, nor particularly relevant to most Conservatives. I believe the membership numbers show this to be true. But I do see it mentioned often in Liberal blogs, and whenever Liberals wish to point up something about Conservative's being "fringe" or out of the mainstream political thought. Odd. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 15:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia itself says that guilt-by-association is against the rules when debating someone. Yet Wikipedia supports and defends the use of guilt-by-association to smear conservatives in their entries. Wikipedia adheres to rules and ethics about as much as a lynch mob does. Guess what: intelligent people abandon both.--Aschlafly 17:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Per WP's own rules, the JBS is not an extreme group, or it's publication, The New American considered extremist. Under WP attribution policies, an extreme source can only be used to when writing about the same organization. The citation to the New American in the criticism section of Chip Berlet#Criticism has been there for years, and I doubt very much if even Berlet's defenders would allow it to be removed, if anyone is familiar with this long running controversy. In fact, if anyone cares to investigate it, I would wager that John Birch Society publication was placed there by SlimVirgin herself. RobS 18:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

As I pointed out above, if "guilt" by association is such a problem at Wikipedia (still not sure what exactly the "guilt" is in this case), then it should be removed here. The Liberal hypocrisy page links John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them. Exactly the sort Wikipedia is criticized for. I'd change it but the page is locked. PortlyMort 09:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

PortlyMort, the National Humane Society reference is *not* in the entry about John Kerry. Wikipedia does smear conservatives with guilt-by-association in their own entries. And liberals insist on keeping those smears there, despite its own rules against it. Bottom line: no credibility for Wikipedia anymore. No intelligent contributor is going to be part of a guilt-by-association smear machine.--Aschlafly 13:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
So guilt by association is okay here as long as it's only in certain articles? So it's not in the Kerry article, but it's still in Conservapedia. I wouldn't care myself (it's certainly arguable if mentioning a politician's score from a special interest group is a smear or simply reporting statistics; saying "Senator Fancypants has a 85% rating from the Seirra Club" or "Congressman Popcorn has a 90% rating from the NRA" doesn't seem terribly unfair, though context would be a fator), but this site seems to think it's some sort of cardinal sin. And if it is then you should remove the Kerry reference. So it's not on Kerry's page, It's on the Liberal hypocrisy page (ironic, as it seems to illustrate some hypocricy here). PortlyMort 19:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
PortlyMort, you miss the point. Guilt-by-association is a smear when it appears in the entry for the target of the smear. This is what Wikipedia does, and intelligent contributors will continue to leave Wikipedia as long as it continues that practice. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 21:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
It seems I do miss the point. Why is only a smear when it appears in the entry for the target, but not on any other page? This is making up the rules as you go along. A smear is a smear, regardless of what page it appears on. If it were in the debate or conservapedia or talk space you'd certainly have a point, but it's right there in an article. Are you saying if "Senator Noodle closely associates with Nazis" appears on the Senator Noodle page it's a smear, but if on the Nazi page it says "Nazis have been known to associate with Senator Noodle" it's not? I really do not follow that logic at all. And I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. PortlyMort 13:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

the facts

User:SlimVirgin wrote:[12]

"An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," a passage I was the author of back in March. 466

User:SlimVirgin authored in the Chip Berlet mainspace:

"these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with," Wilcox told The New American, which is published by the John Birch Society. diff

Hence, according to the author of Wikipedia's own Attribution policy, the John Birch Society and it's publication The New American are acceptable, mainstream sources for Wikipedia, and cannot be considered extreme. RobS 18:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Number 65

  • #65 doesn't have any references explaining when Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the current version have any such accusations.
This is directly related to Wikipedia longstanding dispute with Daniel Brandt, and the Wikimedia Foundations unwillingness to require certain "priviliged experts" (a) be required to following WP policies, and (b) refusal of ArbCom to take sanctions against the most blatant and incivil conduct.
The reference you cannot find is available right from CP's main space page [13] Let's extract it, and count the violations of Wikipedia's own policies. Further, this slander and defamation, which Jimbo Wales himself was aware of, stood for at least 18 months. Extracted:
"Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including Chip Berlet, resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, L. Fletcher Prouty, was openly working with and defending Liberty Lobby and the Holocaust denial group the Institute for Historical Review, which republished Prouty's book Secret Team. According to Berlet, Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing conspiracist groups, some of which Berlet considered antisemitic or even pro-fascist. [1]
Look who inserted the information, Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet. I personally was banned for one year for citing Washington Post criticism of a publication Berlet was working for, the editor of which was on Berlet's Board of Advisors. And my citation of the Washington Post criticism was adjudicated as a personal attack against another user. Let's count the number of WP violations of this diff,which Jimbo Wales was aware of, that were allowed to remain for 18 months.
  1. personal attack against another user
  2. citing self
  3. violation of BLP
  4. violation of Reliable Sources
  5. using a self publishing source
  6. using a marginal, fringe, or extreme source
  7. Wikipedia is a not a battleground
  8. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion
  9. experts do not occupy a position of privilge
Wikipedia has a long way to go before it cleans this one up. RobS 16:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you been to the Daniel Brandt article lately? The Brandt situation was disgraceful, and I'm ashamed to say it persisted for so long, but that issue is finally resolved. AManInBlack 18:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

  • "Resolved" according to whom? And after such a horrible, long process of obfuscation and denial, who can say there was any fair resolution at all? Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 19:00, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
I think we should note the situation persisted for a year and half until I posted #65 here; then it was rather quickly resolved, because I exposed exactly the root and core of the a dispute as cited above. Now, what action has been taken against blatant violations of policy CP exposed with this diff? As another editor stated somewhere above, "there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread." [14] Widespread indeed. The first action that probably needs to be taken is him being banned permanetly, and then all his contributions meticulously reviewed. I would venture to say, Berlet has had a hand in numerous examples cited on this list.
The problem in WP isn;t just a flawed edit here or there, it is an institutional problem, a policy stance that allows some editors to slander and promote disinformation with immunity, even when it's brought to the attention of ArbCom. the Trustees, and the benevolent dictator. And when it is exposed, the reprisal and banning happens to the whistleblowers. RobS 19:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
My hunch was exactly correct: Bias #1 states, "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 include:
  • anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[2]
This guilt-by-association was written & inserted by none other than Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, 13:27, 1 April 2005 [15]

To answer the question, "What action has been taken against blatant violations of policy[...]in [such and such diff]", the article is now long-gone, and Wikipedia has enacted a strict policy to try and deal with articles about living people.

The entire Brandt article debacle was a disgrace to Wikipedia by any standards. I misunderstood the somewhat vaguely-written and -attributed listing in #65, taking it to mean that it was a separate, additional issue with the PIR article. As far as I can tell, the list still hasn't changed, and misattributes the mess to the PIR article, without making the context clear. It's certainly a fair criticism and belongs on any list of Wikipedia's failings (although I'm not entirely sure how it establishes some sort of bias), but the current version of this list doesn't make it clear what actually happened to someone who doesn't already know. AManInBlack 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Berlet has a long stream of slander victims, ArbCom knows he does this, so does the Board of Trustees, and so does Jimbo. And SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Will Beback all work as a tag team with him. Fred Bauder, ArbCom Chairman. is a fellow former National Lawyers Guild member and has known Berlet for almost 40 years. When Berlet's malicious conduct is brought before ArbCom, the accusers are banned, And Berlet feels even more justified & reinvigorated.
Who else are known vicitms? Dr. Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Payul Weyrich, Tim LaHaye for starters. Last winter I was in correspondence with User:Baby Dweezil, whom Berlet was trying to get banned. Every indication is is that Baby Dweezil is most probably Dr. Lenora Fullani, not only the first black, or the first black woman, but the first and only women who achieved ballot status in all 50 states for the office of President of the United States. This woman is a living historical figure, yet Berlet has been viciously slandering her for 20 years. When she tried to mitigate the slanders in WP, the old lynch mob led by Berlet & SlimVirgin got rid of her. And then Berlet has the audacity to claim he's for minority and women's rights. It's outrageous the way Wikipedia embraces this fraud. RobS 21:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Article talks only of American statistics

There are conservatives outside the US. All the statistics here say things like "n% of people in are not athiests" as some kind of claim for bias, however the statistics for other countries are different, particularly in Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrescher (talk)

65 Findings of Bias

With nearly two million entries on Wikipedia finding 65 that are claimed (claim leaves room for disagreement on whether these are actual cases of bias) to be biased is really remarkable. That leaves a bias rate of .0000325 percent. A truly remarkable rate given the free wheeling nature of what they do and provide. I beleive that such a rate doesn't prove that Wikipedia is biased but rather proves what a great job they do to maintain an open, factual online reference. I would challenge Conservapedia to meet such a high standard while maintaining an open and free environment for all voices.

--AGivenVoice 14:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't be ridiculous. You know that nobody has read every single article on Wikipedia. 65 reflects the number found out of the representative number reviewed. This is the method that sysop (and former WP bureaucrat) Ed Poor used to compare CP and WP: picking a certain number of random articles from each. DanH 14:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

You're not trying to say that those 65 examples were all found using a random article search, are you? PortlyMort 17:21, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
The vast majority of Wikipedia is either (1) copied directly from an out-of-date public domain encyclopedia, (2) complete junk about rock music, Hollywood figures, or obscure towns, or (3) pornography. Wikipedia welcomes this stuff to try to drive up its internet traffic for the for-profit search engine that its leaders are building. Our examples of bias here do not draw upon this vast majority (and useless) portion of Wikipedia. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:31, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Actually, very few articles are copied from public sources: it was about 8% several years ago, and as Wikipedia has more than doubled in size since then. Included in that figure (in fact, the vast majority) of that 8% are articles on "obscure towns", mostly pulled directly from the 2000 census. Since Wikipedia has grown, and the number of small towns has not, that figure is probably closer 3%. Rock music and Hollywood figures are certainly well-covered, but nowhere near the "majority". Going through 30-some random articles just now I found maybe 5 that fit the bill (a pretty large number, but nowhere near the majority). As for porn, well, I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly Wikipedia covers all sorts of sexual stuff that Conservapedia does not, and it has articles on many porn stars (too many, certainly), but combined they are a miniscule amount of the nearly 2,000,000 total entries on the site. Even this stuff would not meet most people's definitions of "pornography". In any case, my question wasn't answered as to whether Dan was implying that the random article generator was used to make the list, because it clearly was not. PortlyMort 17:48, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
You're clueless about what drives traffic to Wikipedia. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:52, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Hmmmm, let's see, what drives traffic to Wikipedia? Well, google for one. Also people who want to look up stuff on all sorts of topics but don't want to pay the fees commercial encyclopedias charge, or want to find stuff on the "fluff" that the othres don't cover at all (yes, I'm sure looking up Pokemon, Harry Potter, rock bands, and the like does bring a lot of traffic to Wikipedia, but not all of it by any means). And anyone who wants to look for porn will be very disappointed with Wikipedia. There are so many places to find porn on the internet; searching an encyclopedia would be silly (unless someone gets their jollies out of reading prose text giving colorless definitions of sexual acts, but most people are looking for photos and video of hardcore bonking). So what does drive traffic to Wikipedia? You seem to be an expert on it. PortlyMort 18:00, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Oh really? Then explain why you have articles on homosexuality, Molly Ringwald, Rush and Hebden Bridge. Would this be an example of deceit? Noemi 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
There's one other source, this this stuff, the author of whom we've proven writes for extremists publications, inviolation of WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Yet the Foundation wants this junk in. RobS 18:02, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I checked twenty random pages - probably not statistically accurate but I thought it might give some idea. We have six people (1 sportsperson, 3 historical figures, 1 fictional character, 1 celebrity) two european buildings, two American cities or states, two video games and one music album. We also have a Christian musical award, a year of the Islamic calendar, a mental disorder, an asteroid, a political foundation in India and an oil company in Vietnam, and a racehorse.
Now, I do the same on Conservapedia. We have four articles on science (one each of genetics, physics, chemistry and medicine), three on geography or foreign nations (including Islam and the Middle East), three articles on religion, two articles on history, and two on law or law enforcement. We also have one conservative think tank, a neoconservative writer, a Shakespearean play, an animal, a rock band, and one other.
From this small sample set, it should be clear that Conservapedia has quite a different approach than Wikipedia. If nothing else, the people it attracts are more likely to be interested in traditional encyclopedia material like science and history, than in stuff like video games and cartoons. --JonathanDrain 08:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Interesting, although what your study does not take into account is that Wikipedia also has entries (probably much more complete ones) on the subjects you found in Conservapedia. At least, I'd wager they do; I can't be sure without knowing specifically what they are. Wikipedia has nearly 2 million entries (I say "entries", not "articles") compared to Conservapedia's 15,000 entries. Your study shows that Wikipedia has much mroe fluff. Of course it does; no one denies that. The implication that therefore Conservapedia has more serious topics, because more come up in a random search, is erroneous. If even 2/3 of Wikipedia's articles were fluff or substantially problematical (and that is by no means true), it would still have more than 600,000 more articles on encyclopedic topics than Conservapedia, most of them containing much more information (I certainly agree that Wikipedia could really use some more conciseness, but many articles here are grossly inadequate). And keep in mind that your pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse. Most people go to encyclopedias to look up a specific topic, not to hit the random article button. If someone looks for and finds a decent article on the Battle of the Nile, fine. That it may share hard drive space with thousands of articles on albums doesn't really matter. PortlyMort 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
I have to come to the defense of JonathanDrain. If the question is which encyclopedia has the higher fraction of serious topics, the approach is actually a good start. If you however want to measure the relative quality, you might want to do the following: First get a random sample in Conservapedia, and then lookup the corresponding article in Wikipedia, and compare those. And then get a random sample in Wikipedia, and compare those article with the corresponding ones in Conservapedia. But I still think that getting random samples is a good start. Maybe we should in the future agree on an experiment before we conduct it. User:Order
I did this before. The result was that Wikipedia's articles tended to be much longer and more comprehensive. However, Wikipedia's had a sizeable head start, it's been argued and a longer entry isn't necessarily better. Some of the Wikipedia articles are more verbose than strictly necessary. --JonathanDrain 11:51, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos JonathanDrain. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. User:Order 31 July 22:25
The real test of an "encyclopedia" is how clearly and concisely it explains something to an inquiring student or adult. Any objective evaluation of Wikipedia entries in terms of their ability to teach has to give Wikipedia an "F". I know that may sound harsh, but as a teacher who once used Wikipedia entries in a course, I see that as the inescapable, and unfortunate, conclusion.
The famous, widely publicized comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica a few years ago missed the most important measure of an encyclopedia: its ability to educate in an efficient manner. While the publicized report claimed that Wikipedia was superior to the Britannica in terms of accuracy, in fact there is no question that Britannica is infinitely better than Wikipedia in its educational value. But that news report, which bordered on defamation, ignored that key measuring standard and as a result destroyed the Encyclopedia Britannica. The loss is everone's.--Aschlafly 15:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
"And keep in mind that your pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse." Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  1. Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," Lobster, No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[16]