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

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Porn again)
(...and about the math...)
Line 56: Line 56:
 
*''Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. ''
 
*''Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. ''
 
:I just haven't got around to disposing of this kenard, yet. But when I do, the libs themselves will agree as well.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:I just haven't got around to disposing of this kenard, yet. But when I do, the libs themselves will agree as well.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
::I acknowledge the existence of liberal bias.  I even acknowledge that some people in the media have a liberal bias.  I do not acknowledge that their is a pervasive, systemic liberal bias.  Frankly, we're not that organized. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 20:38, 4 April 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.
Conservlogo.png
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

Post comments here

Porn again

So no explanation of how opposing regulation of media (which is what opposition to pornography would necessarily require) is a liberal viewpoint, simply the statement that it is de facto the case without a lick of evidence to back it up. Marvelous. Your book deal with Regnery is a shoe in now sir. --RexMundane 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Rex, do you accept the notion of "correlation"? The correlation between liberals and less regulation of porn is very high. This isn't opinion. This can be easily seen by voting records and court decisions. It can be shown scientifically as easily as, say, the correlation between smoking and lung cancer. --Aschlafly 21:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy - if the correlation is so solid, and can be shown through voting records and court decisions, you could provide a citation. You know, so we don't think you're making it up. --Rustyjd07 21:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I have. Look in the most recent archives. I cited the decisions of the Warren Court (in the 1960s) and decisions since. The correlation between liberal Justices and less regulation of porn is nearly 100%.
Do I think a lack of citations are the issue here? No, I don't. I don't think people sincerely doubt the correlation.--Aschlafly 21:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I almost positive that Andy is correct on this. I'm also almost positive that correlations aren't reliable because there might be a tertiary variable unaccounted for... say... freedom of speech? Myk 21:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
So your entire argument is basically that percieved correlation is definite causation then. That being liberal makes one pro-pornography. You cite your personal view of the Warren Court and how they ruled in a few cases as proof that Endorsing pornography is a liberal position and no further explanation is necessary. Thats not the least bit pathetic.--RexMundane 22:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

...and about the math...

You say that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public, and one of the statistics you cite gives the American public as being 18% liberal.

So... Wikipedia is 108% liberal then? I mean that is what you're saying by treating the numbers that way. Of course thats just silly little me for thinking that cant be right. Here I am, brain the size of a planet and it looks for all the world to me like you're twisting math around your middle finger to make numbers say something they self evidently can't. --RexMundane 20:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually Wikipedia being 108% liberal may be estimating it on the low end. RobS 20:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Give User:Mtur/Critique of "Liberal Quotient" a read. Realize the flaws of a self selected survey. Realize the problems of multiple counts in that self selected survey. Realize the lack of identification on wikipedia (several conservative editors here who also have wiki accounts do not identify themselves as conservative for whatever reason). Realize that this discounts the majority of Americans who do not identify themselves as either conservative or liberal (the plurality is moderate). There are so many statistical errors in claiming six times, its not even funny. --Mtur 20:51, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Those stats, Conservative 23% Liberal 68% Moderate 9% is entirely beleivable, and those Conservs are really closet conservatives, few willing to admit it openly or engage in controversial subjects.
Wikipedia has its internal icons who are looked to for guidance in varrying fields of specialization. For as long as I've been involved in the project, there's been a desire from the highest levels to create a Conservaitve spokesperson, one widely viewed moreless as the Bill Buckley of Conservapedia wiki editors. Of course this has been about as successful as the NHL signing Black hockey players. RobS 21:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Those numbers are self selected meaning that they are completely and totally useless for any sort of comparison. Self selected surveys are junk - misleading at best.[1] --Mtur 21:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps the biggest lesson I've learned so far from this project is that liberals won't admit any liberal bias. It's remarkable, really. Mtur, if you don't think Wikipedia has liberal bias, do you think any group does? The NEA? The Democratic Party? Rock musicians? A board meeting at the Village Voice?--Aschlafly 21:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Mtur did not question the presence of liberal bias... Mtur is smart and knows there's no way your would budge on that. He's saying your math is misleading. Myk 21:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I am not doubting that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. I am doubting that it is 6x more liberal than the United States. I am calling into question the math that generates that number and ignores the majority of American voters. I am calling into question what 'liberal' means to a person in another country. To compare a self selected poll to one that is done with proper statistical background is folly. --Mtur 21:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Bloody h***. Why won't you people admit that 3:1/1:2≈2.25? It's not "liberal math", there's no such thing, it's simply math. Math is a bloody fact, not a point of view.
Furthermore, "liberal bias" on Wikipedia is not defined by the number of liberals in the group, it is defined by the liberal bias of their edits. If you claim that liberals can't edit without significant bias, than you claim that conservatives can't either. --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 21:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
  • liberals won't admit any liberal bias
Indeed; there's no evidence for this claim at Liberal;
  • Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
I just haven't got around to disposing of this kenard, yet. But when I do, the libs themselves will agree as well. RobS 22:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I acknowledge the existence of liberal bias. I even acknowledge that some people in the media have a liberal bias. I do not acknowledge that their is a pervasive, systemic liberal bias. Frankly, we're not that organized. Myk 22:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)