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

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508.)
("Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]")
Line 14: Line 14:
I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." [[User:MrGrieves|MrGrieves]] 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==
== Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508. ==

Revision as of 23:42, 5 May 2008

Unprotected by User:Ed Poor


Religious affiliation of Wikipedians

I edited several wikipedian user templates so that templates identifying one with religion a or atheism etc. will result in you being put in that category for example several atheist wikipedian user templates now put the user in the category Category:Atheist Wikipedians, if he/she puts the template on their userpage, revealing our current estimated amount of atheist/ and others is greatly underestimated there is 1722 atheist Wikipedians of which 17 are objectivist. Also we forgot agnostics there is 515 of them numbering about as much as the christian sample of wikipedia alone. There should be a part on the picture where it reveals the sample size. that means there is 2222 atheist or agnostics out of our sample wow! Way more than the sample for christians Please update the picture showing religious affiliation of Wikipedians--Java7837 16:22, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Actually, I'd like to know where that graph came from in the first place. It was put there by Wahrheit, but I've not seen any explanation of where the figures came from. Unless Wahrheit can explain that, I think the graph should be removed as possibly bogus. And by the way, the graph does include agnostics, and how does 515 outnumber mean "about as much as" 789, the figure shown for Christians? Philip J. Rayment 21:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)
As there has been no explanation of the origin or basis of that graph, I will remove it as I suggested above. Philip J. Rayment 19:25, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

"Wikipedia has been called the National Enquirer of the Internet:[1]"

I'm removing this claim because the source is very flimsy. An inactive blog written by a self proclaimed "eccentric" isn't a powerful enough position to put such a quote in the banner. Qc 18:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Isn't the National Enquirer the National Enquirer of the internet? Seems a bit like saying "The Beatles are the Rolling Stones of music." MrGrieves 01:42, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Graph: Number of people claiming a faith = 2179; Number of atheists = 1508.

Is it just me, or are there more people of faith on wikipedia than atheists?

The graph shows that the number of people claiming a faith = 2179 whilst the number of atheists = 1508.

That's 60% believes, versus 40% disbelieves.

Is wikipedia in fact "faithist"?

It makes me wonder if we have any statistics regarding the number of atheists on Conserapedia versus the numbers from the faith groups?

I really hope that Conservapedia (unlike wikipedia) is not bias to any one faith group.

It would be a sorry day for "The Trustworthy Encyclopaedia" if it was dominated by any one faith group; would that be health, surely we wouldn’t want any one group’s view to dominate the others …

Well lets hope not ...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qgobo (talk)

Conservapedia is a conservative Christian resource primarily, I believe. That is the main viewpoint espoused, and I think the stated purpose.--TomMoore 23:07, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Tom, isn't that rather the point, wikipedia isn't a "Christian resource primarily", and thus it should be allowed to express a view other than the one seen here. If bias means subscribing to primarily one doctrine, then wikipedia is less bias than conservapedia. Wouldn't a better title for this page be "Where and how Wikipedia differs from Conservapedia"? However, perhaps your broader point is that no one here is receptive to my point of view so I should gently move on. Qgobo 23:51, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Faith is a uniquely Christian concept. It is being used incorrectly above.--Aschlafly 23:10, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Jews, Hindus, Muslims would be interested to know that. --KimSell 10:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly - please read "people of faith" in the above comments to mean "non-atheists". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qgobo (talk)
That's a meaningless category. It's like making a category of all voters whose last name begins with "A". They disagree among themselves.--Aschlafly 00:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Not true - this article is about how atheists bias wikipedia. Thus, comparison with the group “Non-atheist” is not arbitrary selection at all. It is the logical selection of the group of people on wikipedia who are not atheists i.e. the opposite group to the atheist group.
I believe what you really dislike about my point is that christians have been lumped-in with the other faith groups! If this is your point then forget the atheist and focus on the “non-christians” on wikipedia as a group, then you can see the christians are sorely out-numbered and that wikipedia is blatantly anti-christian website (despite being the largest faith {non- atheists} group on it).
Also, if you do not view the “other faith groups” as proper “faith groups” why are they even on your chart? Why not have “christians vs atheist” or “christians vs non-christians” . Either of these would seem more logical based on your statements above. - Qgobo 00:33, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The meaning of "faith" is something on which I disagree with Andy. So my answer is that you can't divide the groups into "faith" and "non-faith". They all have faith: Atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Further, the group "non-Atheist" is just as arbitrary as "non-Christian", "non-Muslim", "non-Jewish", etc.

The claim that "wikipedia is less bias[ed] than conservapedia" is a very doubtful one, given that it treats the atheistic view of origins as fact and the biblical view as pseudoscience.

Qgobo's comment that we don't want the encyclopedia dominated by one faith falsely presumes that the one faith is not the correct one.

Philip J. Rayment 01:27, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Very well put, Philip, without conceding your broader definition of faith. Your observation is insightful given your broader definition.--Aschlafly 08:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Im only going to say this from a neutral standpoint all stories of creation are myth this is the definition of myth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cal05000 (talk)

Wikipedia is redefining words to advance its liberal agenda.--Aschlafly 17:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
What does wikipedia define myth as, and what is myth defined as? Rellik 18:02, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia does specify that the definition of "myth" is just a traditional story with no implications of truth or un-truth. I can confirm definition this in several dictionaries. Hpesoj 20:56, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
The word "myth" plainly connotes falsity, which is what the liberals on Wikipedia want to connote about creation. See Webster definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aschlafly (talk)
Aschlafly you should sign your posts. And if you read the beginning of the article you can see that the author of the article goes out of their way to define myth. The article is about creation stories, including every major religion. Not just christianity. I fail to see your problem with this. But realizing no matter what I say you will never change your opinion, or for that matter admit you were wrong. So feel free to not comment back. Rellik 22:07, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

You are both right. "Myth" does not imply truth or falsity when used in a scholarly sense. The Merriam-Webster definition 1 (see Aschlafly's link) reflects this. But when used in an everyday sense, it implies something that is not true, as per Merriam-Webster definitions 2b and 3. Wikipedia uses the first definition as an excuse to tar creation accounts as unreliable, but contrary to your claim about "every major religion. Not just christianity", does not include atheism and apply the term to its origins account. Philip J. Rayment 23:40, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Great points, Philip. In sum, Wikipedia's liberal and atheistic bias is demonstrated by how it applies the term "myth" to creation but not to evolution.--Aschlafly 23:52, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia obviously cant say it isnt a myth either so how you put it? AdenJ 23:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

People for the American Way

Granted that Wikipedia does not use the word "liberal" when describing People for the American Way, but it also does not use the word "conservative" when describing the National Right to Life Committee. Wikipedia's conservative bias perhaps? Blinkadyblink 23:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

That does look biased. Good catch, except realize Wikipedia editors think "conservative" is pejorative term.--Aschlafly 23:45, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
Good thing this site shows it's better by not simply inverting that. Barikada 01:28, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Why some of these problems don't count

Biases such as a lack of Biography on conservatives, here is the soltion. ADD THEM! An expert (presumably a conservative) has to write the article. There are more bios on Liberals because there are more people writing about them. Seperating to another website will not encourage what you believe to be true! It means that conservatives and Liberals stay wrong about things. Go and add the Bio, don't write it here!

Number 50. Dismisses the banner saying that an article doesn't represent a world view, and you argue that there is no world view. By your own admission, there is no one view that represents all people of the world. Due to this, it would be necessary to tell people when something is Western centric, or American Centric. An article on Gun law, for example, could not be reliable from an American view because (unlike many countries) guns are supported in the constitution. 50 isa contradiction.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Margheritapizza (talk)

No, you're wrong. Adding a biography on a conservative can result in its deletion or redirect by the Wikipedia police, even though Wikipedia has thousands of entries about obscure liberals.--Aschlafly 12:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I've read your article on the wikipedia police, and I wonder why there isn't an article on the conservapedia police because it seems like there are around 5 people on conservapedia who do everything. Rellik 22:04, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

WP: Sexist?

Wh...what? How does that prove anything? Then again, it IS pretty much on-par with the rest of the petty claims on the page... Barikada 17:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)


I looked up WPs Hamas article, and it describes them as a militant organization, with the rider that the US state dept etc etc as per the linked claim. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 18:40, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Partially true; to quote the article: "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin." More to the point, Wikipedia's article on Al-Qaeda directly calls it a terrorist organization with no peddle-footing around. Therefore, the cited quote is still false in that it specifically says Wikipedia does not call Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization. The quote is false and should be removed. Deweyman 23:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Scratch that. The "Hamas was created in 1987 by the terrorist Sheikh Ahmed Yassin" quote was just added by an IP address today and could possibly be reverted. However, the Isreali Media quote is still wrong due to the Al-Qaeda issue, as much as I agree of Wikipedia's bias. Deweyman 23:13, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
I removed the article again today. If someone were to look up Wikipedia's Al-Qaeda article and discover that we were perpetuating false information, it would damage our credibility. The truth alone is an incredibly strong case against Wikipedia, so we don't need to give anyone reason to believe otherwise. Deweyman 22:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
You deleted an accurate quotation of an observation that is substantially true. In the Al-Qaeda entry on Wikipedia that you cite as a counter-example, Wikipedia uses the term "militant" repeatedly to describe the organization and only uses the term "terrorist" in the context of official government descriptions of the organization.--Aschlafly 22:54, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
Respectfully, the first sentence of wikipedia's article is "Al Qaeda is an international alliance of Islamic militant terrorist organizations founded in 1988." Then, yes, it goes on to list the nations that consider it a terrorist organization. It should also be noted that it describes its attacks as "terrorist attacks". Deweyman 17:36, 18 March 2008 (EDT)


Ad hominem against atheists on Number 43. And don't attack me as being a devil worshipper/satanist/atheist: I'm catholic. Mwaetht 13:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT) P.S. On 49: Ever hear of Project Steve?

How is No. 33 an ad hominem argument? An ad hominem argument is where you attack the person rather than their argument. No. 43 is not attacking atheists; it's attacking Wikipedia's treatment of atheism.
And "Ever hear of Project Steve?" (yes I have; so what?) is not a refutation of anything.
Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Smoking example

I'm confused about the smoking example that you just added. Is the implication meant to be that smoking isn't dangerous? DanH 16:02, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I take it from Ted's edit that Wikipedia wants to downplay the dangers of smoking. Could be tobacco industry types editing on Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 16:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Moved from being inappropriately put in a user's personal talk page


Hello. I'm a long time wikipedia editor, and as such am fairly insulted at your harsh criticism of wikipeda. On the allegations of bias...since conservapedia openly admits being conservatively biased, doesn't that make it even worse than wikipedia? Not that Wikipedia is biased...how can an encyclopedia anyone can edit be biased? TheNobleSith 01:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

And as far as your criticisms of Wikipedia's scope and content...isn't having a larger scope better? Also, you criticized it for having pornographic images and articles. That is true, but isn't it better to have articles that describe things such as pornography and other non-child friendly things in an accurate way? Or is it better to pretend they don't exist? TheNobleSith 01:29, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

My Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia goes part way to answering your questions. Philip J. Rayment 04:36, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I still vehemently disagree about Wikipedia's bias. Anyone can edit Wikipeda, and thus, as long as the change is not biased, it will not be reverted. There is no "ruling class" on Wikipedia--all editors are equal to the others. TheNobleSith 10:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

From personal experience, I can vouch for that not being the case. For example, see the Intelligent Design article (my comments relate to around January/February 2007, which I last seriously looked at it). It was not an article about Intelligent Design, but an article about why Intelligent Design was wrong. And numerous editors either tried changing it or discussing changes on the talk pages, only to have their changes reversed, their discussions shouted down, themselves called trolls and various other names, and generally grilled and harassed to the point that they either left or blew their stack, giving the controlling editors, which included sysops, the excuse to block them. It truly was a mobocracy. I found similar control existed over all articles to do with creationism. I was never blocked on Wikipedia, but I left active editing because of the oppressive regime active in those sorts of articles. See my Wikipedia user page for more detail. Philip J. Rayment 10:47, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, remember what neutrality is. Neutrality does not mean "give both sides equal weight", it means "give both sides equal weight according to the strength of their argument". TheNobleSith 10:52, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

In other words, if a majority of editors consider that the strength of the anti-ID argument is greater than the strength of the pro-ID argument, then an article supposedly about Intelligent Design can have an anti-ID stance. In which case, it comes down to the number of anti-ID editors vs. the number of pro-ID editors, which is not neutrality, but majority rule. Secondly, your definition is self-contradictory. "according to the strength of their argument" means "give the side with the stronger argument more weight", which is the opposite of "give both sides equal weight". And finally, giving the stronger argument more weight may (in principle) be fair, but it's hardly neutral. Philip J. Rayment 11:00, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

You misunderstand me. What I mean is that the article takes a critical look at ID because of the overwhelming number of qualified scientists who are opposed to it, compared to those who favor it. In this case, neutrality does not mean give both sides equal weight in the article, it means give the side that has more reliable sources supporting it the greater coverage. TheNobleSith 11:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

There is no evidence that "overwhelming number of qualified scientists ... are opposed" to ID. Moreover, it's a meaningless statistic anyway; 30 years ago an "overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space. By relying on this approach, you have illustrated an example of point 11 of liberal style: overreliance on hearsay.--Aschlafly 12:03, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Most scientists believed there was life in outer space? Have any proof for that statement? Sounds like you are being a good liberal and relying on hearsay!--Mathewson 12:06, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Mathewson, I'm afraid you're clueless. Please stick around here and learn some things with an open mind. It's common knowledge that a generation ago scientists overwhelmingly believed in life in outer space. See, e.g., Exobiology. Rest assured I was not relying on what a majority of scientists reportedly believed. You are.--Aschlafly 12:40, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
No, my friend, I am far from clueless. You made the claim that an ""overwhelming number of qualified scientists" insisted that there was life in outer space." Can you provide any cites proving that this statement is correct?--Mathewson 12:49, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Life in space has been neither proven nor disproven; and for that matter, it can't be disproven since the universe is theoretically (or at least practically) infinite in size. It could only be proven, and only then by finding life in space. But that is besides the point. Any encyclopedia should strive to provide its readers with the most accurate and up-to-date information from people who actually know what they're talking about. As such, Wikipedia is right in down-playing the supporters of ID...because there are very few reputable ones. if you have any examples of reputable supporters of ID, please tell me. TheNobleSith 12:51, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Folks, I'm not going to allow the repetition of liberal falsehoods on my own talk page. Please illustrate point 11 of liberal style somewhere else. In response to Mathewson above, I did provide a cite, and am not confident he read it with an open mind.
Further attempts at liberal last wordism on my personal talk page may result in a short block of the offending account.--Aschlafly 14:04, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Translation: "It's my website, so I get the last word." (Go ahead and reply to this one, Andy. I just wanted to point out the blatant hypocrisy here.) --Gulik5 14:54, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Gulik5, you're clueless also. We've always had a policy of respect on Conservapedia for everyone's talk page, in contrast with Wikipedia. See point 11 in Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia. Insist on last wordism on my talk page and you'll then see an example of an account being blocked for violating this principle.--Aschlafly 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I wasn't aware I was trying to get the last word, I thought we were having a conversation. TheNobleSith 16:32, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Maths, anyone?

"Wikipedia asserts that "One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science."[76] This statement is false, but Wikipedians won't correct it and it has been repeated thousands of times by other liberals in reliance on Wikipedia.[77] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that every other scientist must support evolution.[78] Under that reasoning, if 1000 persons signed a statement opposing President George W. Bush, then nearly 300 million Americans must support him! Funny how Wikipedia does not claim that."

700 out of 500,000 expressed as a percentage is 0.0014%. That is, by your figures, 99.9986% - more than the much maligned estimate gave. Can someone please tell me what the point of the '700 scientists' comment was, if it only serves to destroy your own arguments?

Also, the figures are more closer to 7% religious.

- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

--Tommy 21:58, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Tommy, your objection is not clear and you seem to be missing the flaw in Wikipedia's biased claim. Your point about the religious seems completely unrelated to your other point. Be clear, and I'll respond, but demonstrate that understand the flaw in Wikipedia's analysis or else I may not waste my time.--Aschlafly 22:21, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Obvious bias in liberal page

Did anybody else notice that in the "See Also" section for Liberal, there are a ton of links, with most of them being negative (to the point of extremity and nitpickiness such as Liberal celebrity obsession or Liberal Myths), while the same section for Conservative has only three links, none of them which are remotely negative?

--Blabberno 21:13, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Administrator names? Huh?

This article makes the claim that Wikipedia harbors an anti-intellectual bias because of the fact that the site has many users with "silly administrator names", uhm, excuse me, but it also makes the claim all over this page that there are far too many examples of pages being "complicated" or information about people being "buried" within lengthy articles. I don't have any problem with this page at all, and I appreciate what it's trying to say, but I have to take issue with how its said. It's irresponsible and misleading to say that the little tags accompanying edits on Wikipedia are somehow a vanguard of idiocy but then to say that Wikipedia is being deceptive because it doesn't follow (or, speaking chronologically, because it didn't create) the Conservapedia model of referring to politicians in cherry-picked Fortune Cookie-size snippets according to subjective information and some stray quote. It's hardly a stretch to say that a Congressman or activist or other such notable figure being referred to as being "...a liberal Socialist secular-progressive who once referred to Christianity as a charade" (or some other such marginalization) would be difficult to find on Conservapedia. Basically, if this articles going to attack Wikipedia for being a flip-flopping, contradictory, biased Gemorrah, then let's please not turn around and do these EXACT same things on very page where we claim these things about them. Just a thought (as with most things here...). LinusWilson 14:20, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

I concur. --Steve 14:23, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Replying to Linus above, there is nothing contradictory about:
  • criticizing anti-intellectual user names
  • criticizing long-winded, wordy entries filled with trivial and weak on substance
That's Wikipedia in a nutshell. It tells you everything except what you need to know, just like the National Enquirer. And Wikipedia gives that juice from the hands of anti-intellectual contributors who think it's funny to be dumb.--Aschlafly 15:33, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Peter Singer

New to this site. Check out the article on Peter Singer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer, particularly well known for his belief in infanticide. The article makes little mention of his views, and the section purporting to include the ideas reads like an advertisement for his book. An excerpt from one of his books can be found at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm Egd 13:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

  • Quotes such as Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person were removed as being POV
Wikipedia policy: "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view." [1] But this is disregarded by POV-pushers. --Ed Poor Talk 11:59, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Question of Logic

The underlying grammar of this page (at least) is "wikipedia this" and "wikipedia that" as if it were a hive mind, monolithic and single-minded. While the examination of the religion templates of registered Wikipedia users ("Wikipedians", whatever) approaches laudability, the conscious choice to treat it, its articles, and its users as a single static unit rather than one made up of self-selecting communities (with particular categories of articles dominated by particular communities of users) does nothing for your credibility among those who disagree with this website or, ultimately, its political goals. Self-isolation and the creation of an "us vs. them" mentality (among other approaches of this site) just make this //look// like its users are stereotypically smug, self-righteous, hypocritical conservatives working on a "propaganda source" instead of an honestly self-critical attempt at a no-nonsense examination of the world.

To be clear, I am neither conservative nor liberal (my views on foreign policy tend to agree more with 'hawks', my economics more technical than political, my social/civil views classically liberal, and my historical/teleological views loosely extropian). I agree there is some degree of 'liberal' (as nebulous as that word is) bias among Wikipedia's editing communities, but I also think this community's notion of 'balance' is ridiculous. As well, I believe it is politically ineffective beyond 1) preaching to the proverbial choir and 2) reinforcing stereotypes of conservatives - how 'they' think and view others. If those are truly the goals of Conservapedians, then good luck and happy editing. Zebu1911 23:17, 1 May 2008 (EDT)