Talk:Michael Godwin

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Editor not letting article discuss liberal bias.

(Moved from Andy's page)

Please see [1]. SkipJohnson 11:41, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

You could take it up with me before running to someone else. As I said (twice) the edit needs to follow the guidlines. I'm not stopping the article from discussing liberal bias, I'm keeping the article from making a baseless (and false) tangential smack at liberals and Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines. They clearly state that you need to attribute opinion or disputed facts. That a WP lawyer cleans out vandalism of his page somehow means that liberals bias Wikipedia is not a fact; it is a claim. Jazzman831 11:47, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Both above make good points, and opened my eyes to a changing of the guard at Wikipedia: a new attorney, described as a liberal, has taken the helm and is restating Wikipedia policy in the New York Times. He unabashedly edits his own entry and publicly states that anyone else can do likewise. This is a change ... a big one.--Aschlafly 12:25, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
The fact that letting people edit increases bias is so obvious it shouldn't need a citation. Furthermore, this should be noted in the article because it is part of a general pattern, edits by Godwin, Jimbo Wales, Dem HQ, the New York Times. There's a clear pattern here. SkipJohnson 16:31, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
The sentence in question says that letting people edit increases liberal bias. If this were true, then why is Conservapdia not liberal? It simply is not an obvious fact that open editing makes a liberal bias; there are people at WP all the time who undo liberal bias. And, as I have said three times already, it's not the content I'm objecting to, it's the manner in which it is displayed. "This sort of behavior is allowed by liberals, and is a cause of Bias in Wikipedia" is an opinion and an attack and does not belong in an encyclopedia. And on top of all that, somebody removing vandalism or correcting factual information can not be linked with liberal bias.
I'm fine with finding real reasons as to why liberal bias slips into Wikipedia (well... more accurately I tolerate the idea), but this is not one of those reasons. Find something that says "according to X, Y is a cause of liberal bias". Simply being a liberal editor does not automatically mean there will be liberal edits, let alone liberal bias; we have perfectly functional liberal editors on our own site. Jazzman831 23:05, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Letting liberals edit their own pages is an obvious cause of bias. Kent Hovind tried to edit his page and he was stopped. So was Jonathan Sarfati. But when someone is a liberal they let them do it. Of course that makes for more liberal bias. SkipJohnson 11:01, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
You're getting there (I don't see any evidence that Hovind or Sarfati were stopped, but I'll take your word for it for the sake of argument). Letting liberals edit their pages can be an obvious cause of bias, as can be letting conservatives edit pages. It's not an automatic causation, but a possible tendency (and this doesn't take in to account the mediating effect of having thousands of users who all have different points of view). But this all belongs on the bias in Wikipedia page. The only thing you have shown me that belongs on this page is that "Wikipidea" (meaning, of course, Wikipedians) let their paid staff skirt the rule on self-editing.
The whole crux of the matter involves whether or not Godwin's edits of his own page inserts bias into Wikipedia. Here are every single edit he's made to his own page: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. That's it, and most of them are minor wording changes; having nothing to do with actual content. Jazzman831 15:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

The question on autobiographical editing is mentioned in the conflict of interest page[7]. Michael Godwin is notable enough to have a page, and has been notable long before Wikipedia was created. He is not using it for self promotion (thats where the COI issue comes up), nor are his edits self promotion. If there was to be a conflict of interest on editing a page about ones self, The non-controversial edits covers the examples given by Jazzman. The first example given (edited in '05) is a link to a page for a forum he hosted and has no information about him (many notable people have hosted many forums, however the forum itself is not notable). One also has to wonder that if this is a critique of Wikipedia, is there a similar problem here with people editing pages about themselves[8]? What is good for the goose is often good for the gander. --Rutm 16:29, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

"Godwin admits to editing the Wikipedia article about himself"

I'm going to remove that sentence, unless there is a really good reason for keeping it. From what I see, it's in line with Wikipedia's COI policy, others also do it, and even people on this site do it. So the sentence is correct, but pointless. --Jenkins 07:52, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Personal tools