Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Myk (Talk | contribs) at 11:32, 5 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
! 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)
Perhaps the biggest lesson we can learn from this is that Aschlafly won't admit that he did poor math; he rather blames others to be liberal. He doesn't (want to) understand that you can have a wrong proof, for a correct theorem. User:Order April 5 2:00 (AEST)
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 there is a pervasive, systemic liberal bias. Frankly, we're not that organized. Myk 22:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
People are entitled to thier biases; but so-called American "liberalism" has become just a massive jumble of contradictions with a few nihilists and hedonists who seem to be the only remaining groups with any discernable doctrine.
What's frustratating is, they actually hold immense poltical power, but haven't a clue what to do with it. Liberalism, as best I can discern, is just traditional Cain & Abel type stuff. Cain killed Abel cause he was envious, but he wasn't any better off in the end. And that's all libs seem to offer us, is hatred, envy, and sense of getting even. RobS 23:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
What major news outlet is owned, in whole or in part, by identifiably liberal corporations? Crackertalk 22:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Forgive me if I am disinclined to trust the personal opinion of a man who's publically gloats about his utter inability to understand basic mathematics. --RexMundane 23:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Bad data

The discussion about the six times more liberal is going strong again. But lets organize the discussion. There are two problems. First the data that is used is corrupt. Second, the definition of Liberal bias is nonsensical.

First "Bad Data"

The Wikipedia bias is computed with data, obtained from this page:Wikipedians by politics.

  • It relies on raw data from a self-selected sample.
  • You compare the outcome of a poll with 3 possible answers, to one with 131 different answers.
  • You compare the outcome of a poll where you can only choose one option, with one where you choose as many options as you like.
  • Wikipedia is not measured by the Wikipedians, but by the articles that Wikipedians write.

Each of the first three issues make any conclusion drawn from this data set useless. As someone said, counting bumper stickers on your way to work would be more reliable. The last mistake to measure Wikipedia by its editors is easily made, but also easily avoided. Wikipedia gives you a tool to select a random sample of articles, which you could use to determine bias. User:Order 5 April 2:15 (AEST)

Wrong bias.

The second problem is that the Conservapedia claim reads currently "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public". So, this sentence talks about "liberals", and "the public", and that is what you need to compare: "Liberals" and " the public". It doesn't mention conservatives in any form, except that they are part of "the public".

We know that User:Aschlalfy doesn't want to count moderates. In his world view moderates don't count, even if they are the majority. He doesn't care that according to his math 997 moderates, 1 conservative and 2 liberals are as biased as 666 liberals, 333 conservatives and one moderate. Most of us would disagree. If Wikipedia's articles would be for 99.7 percent unbiased (moderate), we wouldn't have this discussion, nor would Conservapedia have a reason to exist. User:Order April 5, 14:25 (AEST)

More bias

Check out Chinaman, Oriental, and related topics on Wikipedia. They espouse the liberal notion that while Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Irishmen, Englishmen and Scotsmen are proper English, but Chinamen is an outrage? They edit away any attempts to challenge the notion that "Eurocentric" terms are okay. Everwill 11:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

*GASP* Bias alert! Quick, let's see...
Frenchman: a native or inhabitant of France
Englishman: a native or inhabitant of England
Scotsman: a native or inhabitant of Scotland
Irishman: a native or inhabitant of Ireland
Dutchman: a native or inhabitant of the Netherlands
Chinaman: often offensive : a native of China
Notice the difference between the last definition and the others? Or is Merriam-Webster now also liberally biased? --Sid 3050 12:07, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
My God! They're everywhere!! Crackertalk
Cracker, this is in addition to your sarcasm on my own talk page. Your account is going to be blocked if you continue to pollute the pages here with silly sarcasm.--Aschlafly 12:35, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I can kinda understand that you forbid sarcasm on YOUR Talk page, but last time I checked, opinions were explicitly allowed on Talk pages in general, and sarcasm was not classified "not family-friendly" yet... Or did I miss some sort of "Do not use sarcasm" rule? --Sid 3050 12:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Chinaman is an example of the poison of political correctness. Diane Ravitch, a scholar, historian, author and Dept. of Education director under Clinton and Bush, has documented how easy it is for special interest groups (read as liberal whacko's) to get words banned by pressuring small groups of educators in large states like California. Her book "The Language Police" explains how a tiny minority can get textbooks and reference books altered to frame a political mindset which is not reflective of the majority of Americans. [1][2]

In other words, yes. Your source is biased. A quote from an online dictionary doesn't mean that a word is offensive. It means that liberal pressure groups are redefining some words to frame their world view. Not everyone agrees with your world view and traditionalists are revolting against your world view. Newsflash: some people think that there's nothing the matter with being an Irishman and there is nothing the matter with being a Chinaman. I'm sorry about your ignorance if you think Chinamen aren't good enough to rate up there with Northwestern Europeans like Welshmen and Scotsmen.

That said, I am willing to concede that I will never convince you (or anyone else) to think anything other than what you already think. The problem is if we as a language culture start a policy of banning words or thoughts because those words are considered offensive by some people then many useful terms and expressions will disappear due to ignorance. Thus in a fair (and not liberally biased) encyclopedia, it's important to report that some people are offended by a term, expression or idea. However, it's equally important to report when and if the perceived offense is considered baseless by traditionalists.

The perfect example of this is the outrage a few years back when a congressman used the word "niggardly". A lot of people were offended. They weren't offended because he said something wrong. They were offended because they were ignorant of of the distinction between "niggardly" and "niggerly".

Therefore, it's an encyclopedia's mission to educate people. It's not an encyclopedia's duty to coddle people because their feelings are hurt when they read or hear a term. Everwill 13:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Merriam-Websters has a print version, too. It's pretty well known. What's the difference between Irishmen, Englishen, Dutchmen, Scotsmen, Frenchmen, etc. and Chinamen? Irish, English, Scots, Dutch, French = adjectives. China = noun. Myk 13:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. http://mtprof.msun.edu/Win1994/PTrev.html
  2. http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/summer03/review12.shtml.htm