Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Science and Evolution

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
William Dembski

This article lists examples of Bias in Wikipedia, related to evolution and science:

  1. Wikipedia's entry on the starlight problem is a typically atheistic distortion,[1] omitting that light appears to older than the age of the universe under atheistic models as well as biblical explanations, and that the expansion of the universe can explain this anomaly under either theory.
  2. Wikipedia falsely states that there is "precise agreement"[2] between the data for PSR B1913+16 and predictions of the General Theory of Relativity, when in fact the data are unmistakably different from the theoretical prediction, no data have been released since 2003 (perhaps due to such divergence), and even the authors of the study admit continuing imprecision by saying that "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."[3]
  3. Wikipedia has separate articles on many small wikis, for instance, LGBT History Project with a WikiFactor of 6, but does not have an article on CreationWiki with a WikiFactor of 45. Articles on CreationWiki are repeatedly deleted.
  4. The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the theory of relativity and Newtonian gravity, but the Wikipedia article describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.[4]
  5. Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the Theory of Relativity, instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)[5]
  6. Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the theory of evolution, such as Dr. William Dembski, whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by liberal critics.[6] For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski.[6] In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location.[7] Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
  7. Wikipedia's article on dinosaurs contains no mention of the strong evidence that they existed alongside humans and no mention of modern sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the best of the public.[8]
  8. Wikipedia's entry on the Scopes trial downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict."[9][10]
  9. On Feb. 19, 2008, an editor removed bias in the form of incorrect and misleading information[11] from the Wikipedia entry about evolution stickers in Cobb County, Georgia.[12] The editor then predicted on Conservapedia that the liberal bias would inevitably be reinserted at Wikipedia, and it was: within 8 hours the liberal falsehoods and bias were reinserted by a Wikipedian.[13]
  10. Wikipedia displays a similar bias against the Institute for Creation Research and its affiliated graduate school--or else displays an appalling lack of critical thinking for a publication that calls itself an encyclopedia. Their reportage on the controversies surrounding the accreditation of the ICR Graduate School, first in California and now in Texas, relies almost totally on the rants and raves by the group calling itself Texas Citizens for Science and fails utterly to consider or even to mention several key facts about those controversies.[14][15][16]
  11. Wikipedia has an extensive entry on "Creation myth".[17] Describing Creationism as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage Christians, and although the Evolution satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth".
  12. Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section, which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it.
  13. 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."[18] 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.[19] The truth is that 700 scientists signed a statement rejecting evolution, but evolutionists then made the illogical claim that a large majority of other scientists must support evolution.[20] 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.
  14. Edits to include facts against Evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.
  15. Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution,[21] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.[22] Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. Gresham's Law reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
    The above paragraph was posted on the Wikipedia entry for "Wikipedia", under bias, but its editors then illustrated their bias by replacing the above with this: "Ojective [sic], or neutrally biased, articles present different opinions as equally legitimate regardless of validity, while unbiased articles focus on accuracy and validity. For example, the evolution article is not objective because it does not present creationism, a counter argument to evolution, as a valid scientific theory. However, this does not make the article biased because evolution is an accepted scientific theory. CNN's Crossfire, on the other hand, was considered objective ... because it had representatives from the political right from the political left."
  16. The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.
  17. The Wikipedia entry for the book "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen Meyer, is heavily slanted to discussing various critics of the book. The one mention of a favorable reviewer is accompanied by a list of those who objected to the reviewer. This is then followed by along list providing quotes from those who reviewed the book negatively, including one reviewer who by his own admission had not even read the book. Any attempts to add in balanced comments regarding the critics, or references to any of the numerous favorable reviews of the book, or to point out the published responses of Meyer to the criticisms of the book are immediately censored.
  18. The unofficial evolutionist cabal continues to control any and all pages covering or related to evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism, and they freely engage in edit-warring without fear of being blocked due to several editors helping each other subvert the "3 revert rule" and the help of admins who are biased to their side. Non-evolutionists are described with the non-referenced, non-neutral term "dogmatically"[23][24] and ID advocates are called "intelligent design creationists" despite the fact that neither they nor Creationists consider themselves alike.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31]
  19. Wikipedia's entry on the intelligent design court decision in Dover[32] distorts and omits the key facts that (i) the judge awarded over $2 million in attorneys fees to the ACLU's side (not $1 million), (ii) the judge copied over 90% of his opinion from the ACLU's briefs,[33] and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.[34]
  20. In the article for flood geology[35], the section containing evidence in favor of a global flood has the header "Evidence cited to support a global flood"[36] while the section containing evidence against it has the header "Evidence against a global flood."[37] Attempts to balance this disparity are met with quick reversions with excuses such as "I don't see this as an improvement"[38] and appeals referencing the so-called "scientific community" (i.e. the "scientific consensus").[39] Additionally, in a recent edit, Hrafn (one of the "usual suspects" who gang up and protect their preferred version of evolution and Creation articles) revealed his unabashed bias by reverting an edit with the explanation "all creationists are WP:FRINGE/'cracked pot[s].'"[40]
  21. Wikipedia's article on cold fusion[41] presents it as a continuing controversy. Liberals hope that cold fusion will rescue us from our oil dependency without the need to drill for oil off our coasts. Cold fusion experiments are actually widely discredited. Wikipedia also presents the widely-discredited [42] Hydrino theory [43] as a possible energy source so that politically incorrect sources of power such as coal and nuclear fission seem less necessary.
  22. Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: "If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone."[44] Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers an article on the topic under the category "Pseudoscience".[45] What reputable encyclopedia uses such a non-encyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? The log on the article shows that Wikipedia has a history of using the pejorative term "pseudoscience" to disparage young earth creationism.[46]
  23. Wikipedia's entry on Richard Sternberg has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed intelligent design paper that he reviewed.[47] In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
  24. Wikipedia has a strong bias against the Discovery Institute, a prominent proponent of intelligent design. Wikipedia articles about the Institute's campaigns (Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism[48] and A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism[49]) devote most space to the criticism of the campaigns, instead of describing the campaigns themselves.
  25. On Dec 11, 2013 the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology (ACEP) sponsored a change.org petition that gained over 8,100 signatures. The petition demanded a less biased coverage of energy psychology. In response, Jimbo Wales denounced them as 'lunatic charlatans.'[50][51][52]

References

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlight_problem
  2. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16 (emphasis added).
  3. See PSR B1913+16.
  4. The anomaly is discussed in an unbiased way here in Essay:Quantifying Order.
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
  6. 6.0 6.1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski
  7. http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/dhw/cv.current.frame.pdf
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial (emphasis added)
  10. Thanks much to a student in our American History course for pointing this out.
  11. The article incorrectly refers to the sticker as "creationist", and claims that "Claiming that evolution is "only a theory" ... is a common creationist tactic.", ignoring that the largest creationists groups specifically reject this tactic.[1]
  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=192393310&oldid=190591826
  13. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selman_v._Cobb_County_School_District&diff=next&oldid=192393310
  14. Institute for Creation Research by Wikipedia
  15. Schafersman," Steven. "The Institute for Creation Research and It's (sic) Quest for Official Texas Certification to Award Masters Degrees in Science Education." Texas Citizens for Science, December 17, 2007; updated January 6 and January 28, 2008. Accessed March 19, 2008.
  16. Bergman," Jerry. "The Religion of Vague: An Unsuccessful Attempt by the State of California to Close a College." Revolution Against Evolution, May 22, 2003. Accessed March 19, 2008.
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
  19. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7
  20. "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'." Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel (1987-06-29), "Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)", Newsweek CIX(26): 23-24, ISSN 0028-9604
  21. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
  22. Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia
  23. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=prev&oldid=267885268
  24. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wedge_strategy&diff=next&oldid=268115244
  25. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=267130640
  26. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=267873798
  27. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=268116166
  28. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267130755&oldid=267129633
  29. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267875875&oldid=267874801
  30. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=267881496&oldid=267877410
  31. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=268117670&oldid=268115954
  32. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
  33. Id.
  34. Id.
  35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology
  36. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_cited_to_support_a_global_flood
  37. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Evidence_against_a_global_flood
  38. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=288093849&oldid=288042808
  39. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=next&oldid=288488331
  40. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flood_geology&diff=289076441&oldid=289074740
  41. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
  42. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan09/7127
  43. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randell_Mills
  44. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
  45. Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
  46. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history
  47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg
  48. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_and_Surgeons_who_Dissent_from_Darwinism
  49. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism
  50. "Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology Reports Wikipedia Founder Censors Alternative Health Care Industry, Calls Providers "Lunatic Charlatans"", PR Presswire, April 3, 2014. Retrieved on April 3, 2014. 
  51. http://www.change.org/petitions/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054
  52. "Wikipedia founder calls alt-medicine practitioners “lunatic charlatans”", ars technica, March 25, 2014. Retrieved on April 3, 2014. 
Personal tools