Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-15T04:22:55Z

Paisan30: /* Ron Paul Newsletters */

{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== possible bias ==

Numerous articles refer to the World War II Japanese American internment centers as "concentration camps"
--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 21:49, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

: Yeah, that's typical [[liberal]] bias. Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Exactly what is a concentration camp?the preceding comment was made by [[user:KalleF|KalleF]]

they actually don't refer to them as concentration camps, but merely say that they have been called concentration camps
and they meet the definition of a concentration camp
if you were wondering

Britannica- a concentration camp is an internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment.

Yep, thats Japanese-American internment

:He's right you know ^^
"concentration camp" has negative connotations, but thats ok because it was negative. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

== Obvious bias in articles on media bias watchdog groups ==

In wiki, (MRC) Media Research Center is labeled as conservative in the opening sentence, while FAIR (Fairness in Accuracy in Reporting) has no label at all in the opening sentence. Any attempt to delete conservative from MRC or add liberal to FAIR results in being blocked or banned from wiki. Complete lack of consistency. Even within the article for FAIR, you are not allowed to mention the word liberal, but must use the milder word progressive, although conservative is all over the MRC article. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 08:24, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm slightly amused to see how some people join Conservapedia only/primarily to complain about how they got slapped on the wrist (in this case for edit warring) on Wikipedia.
:I must also note that you have zero blocks on Wikipedia, despite your edit war and your apparent unwillingness of discussing (as seen on Talk:Media Research Center). So much for "results in being blocked or banned".
:Furthermore, the term "liberal" is even used in FAIR's intro section, and the article is a member of the category "Liberal organisations". So I don't see how the word "liberal" is banned in there. Oh, and the word "conservative" is also all over the official MRC site.
:However, we currently appear to lack entries for both MRC and FAIR, so please feel free to contribute! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 08:50, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the purpose of joining this website is because of an overwhelming number of liberal slanted editors on wiki, hence, this provides an outlet for those with neutral or conservative viewpoints. This is pretty much the mission statement of this website, and this particular situation further proves the value of Conservapedia. It's strange that you find that amusing since you are a member here as well. The reason that so many edit wars happen on wiki is because if somebody dares edit anything to be neutral or conservative, thier edits are reverted by the majority liberal editors, thus the purpose of conservapedia. And a simple view of the history of the 2 mentioned articles notes provides more than enough evidence that many are blocked and banned for the very reason of opposing these biased editors. And a simple scan of these two articles notes that conservative is blatantly put in the first sentence of the MRC article, but liberal or progressive is not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. Yes, I do plan to provide entries here for MRC and FAIR when I have the time to do so. [[User:Rhino7628|Rhino7628]] 18:43, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

:::My reasons for joining are not political. I actually disagree with CP's right-wing view and the creationism stuff, but I try not to let that get in the way of my editing (which is why I often go to talk pages first to voice my concerns). I know that this is what CP does, and so I often move on, even while my consciousness is screaming at me. I mostly try to defuse overly broad or wrong claims and inserted opinions to improve the overall image this site projects.
:::Oh, and this site's mission statement is not neutrality. We don't do NPOV here. I'd love this site to be neutral, but it's not. Take a look at some of our hot-topic articles ([[Atheism]], [[Homosexuality]], [[Theory of Evolution]], etc.), and you will find that they are geared in very specific ways and that edits going against that way are removed because of their "liberal bias" (among other things).
:::Yes, I think you found a site that you can agree with (and I'm genuinely curious where you and CP will go with FAIR and MRC), just be aware that the things you complain about (like [[placement bias]]) also happen here, only in more extreme dimensions. And edit warring is a no-no on both WP and CP. :P --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 20:02, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

== Outdated info ==
Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for displaying outdated information; shouldn't outdated claims on these pages be removed?[[User:KalleF|KalleF]] 08:45, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I believe this has been brought up occasionally (check the first sections of Archives 7 and 8 of this talk page for more recent examples), and the answer generally seems to be "No." Personally, I would enjoy seeing the list being updated/trimmed/archived because it does CP's reputation little good to openly attack Wikipedia for things that have been fixed (or been rendered obsolete in another way) more than half a year or so ago. A shorter list with only the big and current/urgent items would hold the reader's attention longer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:09, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. A shorter list of more significant "biases" would do more to convince me than the paranoid diatribe currently available.[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 09:59, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia in its article Politics of Eritrea clearly describes the country as a "one-party state", so quit the garbage about Wikipedia refusing to recognize the fact.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:18, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins' edit ==

Number 80 really needs to be reworded. The wording suggests that Wikipedia let him link to an item on his store for over a year, when his conflict-of-interest edit was moved away from the body of the article in about '''1 1/2 hours''' with the chance of deletion. Meanwhile, his '''one''' previous edit to his page was a small factual error correction about being editor of four scientific journals and founder of a fifth (he was the editor of just two scientific journals and was not the founder of the fifth). Clarify wording? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 13:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

*Moved away? When? How long until resolution? What would happen there to me, an unknown, if I linked to and was selling some tapes of mine? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:16, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

::Considering that "User:RichardDawkins" edits apparently also broke numerous links, it's possible that the account had been hijacked (sounds more likely than Mr. Dawkins feeling the sudden urge after a year of inactivity to vandalize his own article). The people on WP are considering it, and one of them contacted Dawkins to check since these edits simply look odd.
::And there is a factual error in the entry: It did ''not'' take "well over a year after he first edited his own article" for somebody to notice it: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins#Richard_Dawkins Talk page]
::That all aside, I don't see why Conservapedia is making a big deal out of it. After all, we have [[Special:Contributions/Stephenblack|User:Stephenblack]] editing [[Stephen Black]] and [[First Stone Ministries]] ("Reverend Stephen Black is the Executive Director of First Stone Ministries"). And here, people seemed quite [[User talk:Stephenblack|delighted]] about it - maybe he was even invited to join CP to edit his own article? Do I have to conclude that Conservapedia encourages people to edit their articles where they have a COI? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:54, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== grammatical note ==

"Arbitration Committe Chariman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], who's official website..." should read "whose official website." [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 23:49, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:And Committe should be Committee. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 21:04, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did." ==

Ouch. Is this a POV statement? Merely associating one with the John Birch Society is ''worse'' than McCarthy-esque destruction of someone's career and life because of perceived communist undertones? Knowing Conservapedia's user base wouldn't association with the JBS be flattery?[[User:Shocktherapy|Shocktherapy]] 10:04, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps it should also be noted that three of those examples, as they remain in the present tense, are patently FALSE and have been so for some time. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:18, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Wikipedia removed the smear against the [[Democrat]], the deceased person and the baseball player. It left the smear against the most influential conservative group.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:23, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::While I disagree that the association between the John Birch Society and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons really constitutes a "smear" (regardless of the publication date, the assertion is properly attributed, and at the time Paul W. Leithart, a President of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, was in fact a member of the JBS), I will leave the definitions of what text and deeds at Wikipedia constitute "bias" up to you. I appreciate the adjusting of the tense in the example to be more factually and objectively correct. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::: Feebasfactor, as in our discussion about [[Richard Dawkins]], where you missed the point about how the purchase of a professorship is inappropriate, you seem to miss the point here. Guilt-by-association is wrong regardless of whether it is true. In fact, it is '''more''' wrong if it is true!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I think I understand... The association is not an example of "bias" because it is factually incorrect, but rather because it is unnecessary and misleading, presenting "facts" in such a way as to imply a false relationship and paint an unflattering picture of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. That seems to make sense; did I... get the point this time? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:40, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. It is "guilt by association" to smear one group based on the possibility that some of its members belong to another group found objectionable. Did you know that thousands of Democratic voters are communists???? Yet you won't see [[Wikipedia]] using guilt-by-association to smear [[liberals]]. Instead, the biased [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] only.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:08, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==#82 is out-dated/incorrect==
It claims that the homosexuality category was not deleted and that the heterosexuality one was. However, the homosexuality one ''was'' deleted shortly thereafter. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Gay_Wikipedians&action=edit this link]. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 12:34, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:Someone please make this change this. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:09, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Here are the sources confirming this (please try to include clearer sources in future, we cannot follow up every claim or correction looking to verify it). The category was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians deleted] on October 10, 3 months after the previous decision, as per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Category:Gay_Wikipedians this] discussion. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:40, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::Also, the example to which this applies is currently example #86 (the last on the list). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:41, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I would suggest simply mentionning in the example that the homosexuality categories were eventually deleted as well. However, the fact that a distinction was ever made in the first place (between the validity of the heterosexual and gay categories) is still indicative of bias at Wikipedia. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:53, 1 December 2007 (EST)

== Factual corrections on Henry Liddell ==

I did some research on the accusations about the Henry Liddell article. Though Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 is used in many articles, it was not used in the Henry Liddell article. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Liddell&diff=3213370&oldid=3213308 edit] that first inserted the names and social distinctions of his grandparents wasn't from Encyclopedia Britannica. This first edit was made in 2005 by an anonymous IP shortly after the article was created. The IP address has not made any edits since. The accusation about Alice Liddell were moved up into the introduction in February. The grammar error was also fixed in February. Last week the years that he was dean at Christ Church were written into the article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 19:44, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

: We didn't say that Liddell was based on the Encyclopedia Britannica, just that many entries are. And how do you know those edits didn't come from the Encyclopedia Britannica???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 17 October 2007 (EDT)
:: I know because I looked at the edit history in detail, compared versions, and saw the exact points where each relative was added in (they weren't all added in at once). Fascinating things, edit histories. That and the paragraph isn't in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] ([[User_talk:PostoStudanto|Tλlk]]) 00:14, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

==Interesting study of Wikipedians' political beliefs==
I studied the political beliefs of Wikipedians after reading that you said that they have a strong [[liberal]] bias. I found that, although it's mostly liberal, it's pretty evenly distributed ([http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Pol-access.PNG see graph]). This should be incorporated into the article. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 11:12, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:That's interesting and surprising. And as an engineer I'll take graphs over words anyday :) Could I ask the methodology involved? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:29, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:: The graph makes it look like all three categories are comparable in size. They are actually vastly different in size. Factor size of the groups into this, and you'll see that the 3:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives as stated in the entry here is about right. The general [[U.S.]] public is 2:1 conservative-to-liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:35, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Andy's right that registered users vastly outnumber administrators and bureaucrats; in terms of quantity alone, the ratio of liberals to conservatives probably does approach 3:1. However, this study raises another interesting question: if Wikipedia's administrators and bureaucrats are surprisingly balanced in their political views, then why does Wikipedia seem to have such a [[liberal bias]]? Does this mean that the population of casual Wikipedia users is predominately [[liberal]]? In which case: how much is to blame on the sytem, and how much on the public? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:Are there really so few moderates among signed-in users? I'd be interested in the methodology as well.--[[User:Bayes|Bayes]] 21:03, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

I simply went by what users put on their userpages, so it's not completely accurate. Perhaps certain people with a particular belief tend to be less likely to pronounce it. That's definitely a downfall, but it's as accurate of a study as one can get limited resources.

Also, I don't find the bias too harsh. You should see what people put on Obama's and Clinton's pages. If Wikipedia was horribly biased, I wouldn't edit there, as I certainly find myself conservative. I think it's just that it's uncensored and open, which may make it more liberal.

However, if you researched for your facts, then I suppose you're correct. I just try to correct biases both ways everyday. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:29, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Another thing: as for the moderates in regular editors, I suppose they're more likely to put their beliefs on their userpages if they feel really strongly either way. And the opposite goes for admins/crats: they probably want to seem neutral, so make sure to state that they are if they are, and maybe not give their true beliefs to avoid conflict. '''[[User:hmwith|нмŵוτн]][[User talk:hmwith|τ]]''' 09:31, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Why does this matter?==
I don't understand why enumerating the examples of bias in Wikipedia matters that much, obviously every person has a bias of some sort, so every article written in wikipedia or otherwise has some degree of personal opinion. The general idea I get from reading this article is that Wikipedia as an entity is responsible for this bias, which is obviously incorrect since its the users provide the information it contains. maybe I don't understand what Conservapedia is about but it seems that this list is mostly filled with either misleading facts, isolated incidents, or gossip that has no place in a proper Encyclopedia.[[User:Morgoth|Morgoth]] 00:26, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

: Wikipedia doesn't admit its bias, and hence it is important to expose it. And, yes, groups or mobs can have biases too. Spend some time with the attendees at the Democratic National Convention and you'll notice they have a bias, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, everyone has a bias, but the stressing of Wikipedia's supposed 'non-negotiable' NPOV is in complete contrast to its strong liberal, anti-Christian leanings. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:39, 19 November 2007 (EST)

::: It does seem as if, considering that you have been working on this list of examples of liberal bias on wikipedia for over a year and you've only found 99, it seems as if you're either doing a very poor job or that there isn't very much liberal bias, especially since there are 2 million pages. In addition, if you were actually trying to objectively prove an overall liberal bias on wikipedia, you would have both a liberal bias page and a conservative bias page, but I guess that would be too unbiased for conservapedia {{unsigned|Echew99}}

==Heavy Promotion of Liberals in Inappropriate Places==
I hope I'm not missing anything here, but while the "Boy Scouts v. Dale" articles still promotes liberal Evan Wolfson, I could no longer find the claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'" - it appears to have been changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale]. Should I look for the appropriate version in the article history? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:Aha, here it is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885] Compared to Conservapedia, I'm always suprised at how long it takes to fix these sorts of mistakes at Wikipedia. Then again, considering the political slant of the "mistakes" there, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:35, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: I updated this within minutes of this being pointed out here, and within weeks of the change on [[Wikipedia]]. That's quicker than the time it took [[Wikipedia]] to reduce (and not eliminate) its bias in that entry there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

:: Upon rereading the unsigned comment above, it seems to agree that the [[liberal]] "mistakes" on [[Wikipedia]] are very, very slow in being corrected.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I do! :-) And sorry about the signature. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:45, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

: My apologies. I realized after posting that I completely misread your additional (unsigned) comment. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:49, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== #2 (Prodigal Son) ==

Pretty much all of the entires on this list are misleading or trivial, so it seems kinda silly to pick on just one, but #2 is just blatantly false. The article on the "Prodigal Son" says nothing about rock bands or liberal media (?) shows like "Miami Vice". The ''disambiguation'' page does, but that can only be accessed through the main Prodigal Son page unless someone happens to include "(Disambiguation)" in their search, so don't pretend for a second that Wikipedia is trying to downplay the Biblical part.
--[[User:LutherBifteck|LutherBifteck]] 19:46, 8 November 2007 (EST)

: No, most of the entries on the list are not trivial. It does not even talk much about the vast percentage of [[Wikipedia]] entries that are silly rock bands or obscure places, for example.

: [[Wikipedia]] has changed many of its entries in response to this list, and perhaps the [[Prodigal Son]] was one of them. I'll look into this further. I'm sure our point about the [[Prodigal Son]] was correct when written.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 18 December 2007 (EST)

==Seigenthaler controversy==
WP's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction] says, "A variety of changes were also made to Wikipedia's software and working practices, to address some of the issues arising. ...The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales."

One of the 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales was Essjay, whom according to the ''New Yorker'' retraction, "was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team" and "Wales recently established an 'oversight' function, by which some admins (Essjay among them) can purge text from the system, so that even the history page bears no record of its ever having been there." [http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact#editorsnote]

So in this alleged "reform," Jimbo appoints someone's whose honesty is certifiably questionable, and vests him with power to coverup abuses. Pulitzer Prize winning author Stacy Schiff names Essjay as Wales appointee; why can't Wikipedia's own entry on the Seigenthaler scandal clarify the facts? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Technical correction: According to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight Wikipedia Oversight documentation] the oversight extension doesn't technically purge the text from the system. The removed edit stays in the database, but is hidden from regular users. Anyone with oversight permission or better (stewards, developers, etc.) can view the edit. There isn't an interface yet for reverting those edits, so one of the developers has to do a direct query to the database. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)

::I have evidence of non-Admins using oversight before oversight was ever established. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:40, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::I'm confused. What exactly do you mean by using oversight before it was established? And what does it have to do with the technical impossibility of a complete cover up? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:34, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== #81 ==

''Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."'' - If he had fixed it himself, then Wiki-libs would have blocked him in some manner, whether by cabals of libs 'outvoting' him under the guise of false consensus, or blocking him for editing his own article. It's idiocy to claim that someone can right the wrongs on Wikipedia if the biased libs there want the content protected to forward their agenda. [[User:Gofyylb|Gofyylb]] 21:34, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Belfast / Good Friday Agreement ==

There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia, as I'm sure many of you are familiar with - especially in relation to Northern Ireland. However, this issue is not one of those examples.

To wit: The BBC did not create the Agreement and, in any case, [http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/schools/agreement/constitutional/support/ci_c031.shtml refer to it as both the Belfast.. and Good Friday.. Agreement as well as "the Stormont Agreement"]. It was drawn up by two governments after a consultation and signed in Belfast. Before that, the proposal was called, simply, [http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/agreement.htm "The Agreement"].

Both terms were coined to describe it based on when (Good Friday) and where (Belfast) it was signed.

Its official long form name would probably be "AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND" (excuse the caps - this was copied and pasted from the Agreement itself).

Politicians tend to vary between calling it the "Good Friday Agreement" and the "Belfast Agreement". Many Christian politicians actually prefer the latter. The case is the same for the public in Northern Ireland.

The House of Commons refers to the document primarily as the "Belfast Agreement", occasionally as "The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement" and mostly as "the Good Friday Agreement" when quoting from other sources in the [http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp98/rp98-076.pdf Northern Ireland Bill] which implemented the Agreement.

The [http://archive.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publications/ba.htm official website] of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland refers only to "the Belfast Agreement".

The Agreement itself is titled ''"The Agreement"'' and includes an annex entitled, ''"Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."''

One can only conclude that "Belfast Agreement" and "Good Friday Agreement" are both basically nick-names, and the official name for the document is "The Agreement".

"The Belfast Agreement" is in no way "less familiar", unless you are specifically talking about the USA perhaps, or what it is called on the Internet or other media sources. If you were to mention either "The Belfast Agreement" or "The Good Friday Agreement" in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK, or the Republic of Ireland, I'm pretty sure the chances are similar that both names would be equally recognised. --[[User:Setanta|Setanta]] 12:12, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Wikipedia betrays itself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Belfast_Agreement] on this one: more pages link to the Redirect (211) than the mainspace (45), 4 and one half to one difference. Even a discussion at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28United_Kingdom-related_articles%29#Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography.2FHow_to_write_about_settlements Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements] uses Good Friday. Sorry, but IMHO, this one reeks of anti-Christian [[bigotry]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:16, 24 November 2007 (EST)

== #4 Justice Byron White Error ==

Is this [[bias]]? It is a mistake, but wikipedia prefers edits by registered users over anon IPs, as shown by the implementation of semi-protected pages and by the edit statistics.

: Wikipedia allows editing by anonymous IP addresses, and those edits are often [[liberal]] smears of people. I think Wikipedia's bias is one reason why it continues to allow this practice. Conservapedia does not allow editing by anonymous IPs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: I've done vandalism patrol before, and I promise you this: the vast majority of vandalism is by idiots who think inserting nonsense or deleting content is clever. Not smears, just idiocy. If there happens to be a source that ''conclusively'' contradicts what I'm saying, go ahead and cite it.
:: The only routine vandalism that could possibly be seen as a smear is vandalism to political articles. Many prominent politicians have 3 or more pieces of vaguely insulting vandalism per week. One example is an edit by a 3 edit user to George W. Bush's page that inserted "He is considered by many as the worst president in modern American history." That edit was reverted by a certain Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 20:30, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: Anonymous IP addresses are the source of numerous [[liberal]] smears, such many identified in the content page here: [[Bias in Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:11, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: This is the talk page for that article. [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 21:39, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Dawkins again ==

Can somebody tell how the Oxford statement "The Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree" continued? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==#84==
I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article recently - however, #84 should be removed from here and simply placed in [[Wikipedia|the article]] - because the fact that false information obtained from Wikipedia went into a news source is not bias by Wikipedia- merely stupidity by the news source.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 1 December 2007 (EST)

: You still don't "get it" about the bias of [[gossip]] in [[Wikipedia]]. #84 is example of [[Wikipedia]] fomenting false [[gossip]]. [[Wikipedia]] pretends to be an encyclopedia, when in fact it's more like the National Enquirer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:58, 1 December 2007 (EST)
::I understand that they pretend to do that - and I agree that doing that is certainly disgusting, however, if a frog pretends to be a prince, it's not bias - and this article is "examples of bias in Wikipedia"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:49, 1 December 2007 (EST)

==#8==
This entry is quite obsolete. The statement no longer features such terms as "extrapolation" and "credibility" or any such inaccuracies, and the citations reflect the phrasing in its current form. This one should be removed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)

==#20==
This entry seems to show immense hostility towards Wikipedia for not having an article for the word "Deceit" - However, Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary - this is explicity stated in the guidelines "WP:NOT" or "What Wikipedia is Not". I fail to see the problem here. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:47, 11 December 2007 (EST)

: But [[Wikipedia]] does have an entry on [[deceit]], using a redirect. Your criticism would only be valid if [[Wikipedia]] omitted the entry entirely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, Wikipedia will redirect you to an article on "Deception", apparently with a disambiguation link at the top. Deception is a term that 1.)Requires disambiguation because of the existence of multiple entities with that exact title (albums and the like) and 2.)It's more generic, hence why the main article can be thorough and expanded with subsections. Anyway, it just seems like Conservapedia wants Wikipedia to define a term (deceit) which would most likely get slapped with a speedy deletion tag or an AfD - but not because it's concealing anything, but because users will cite WP:NOT. I hope that clarifies my position. Cheers [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 23:03, 11 December 2007 (EST)

::: Now you make a different argument. In fact, [[Wikipedia]] only changed its redirect of "deceit" to "deception" after we pointed out its bias. [[Wikipedia]] used to redirect "deceit" to "lie", and thereby denied what deceit really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 11 December 2007 (EST)

== Mary Stachowicz article vs. Matthew Shepard article ==

On Wiki, the article about Matthew Shepard[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard] unequivocally treats his murder as a "hate crime." The article goes on at length about it being a "hate crime" and how it affected "hate crime" legislation. It is also categorized as "Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes."

Meanwhile, the article about Mary Stachowicz states she was murdered only "in an ''apparent'' hate crime" (emphasis mine) and the rest of the article downplays the "hate crime" angle. The "hate crime" category was added to the article on October 26th, but removed on November 16th with the cryptic edit summary of "inapt [not suitable] category."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mary_Stachowicz&diff=171878973&oldid=171817516] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

: Superb. I'll work on a new point #1 to reflect your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Viewership ==

I hate to point this out, but I will. If CP and WP reversed positions, and people relied on this outlet for information, the blatant errors would be very much the same as they are today. Consider for instance my favourite of all, the article on Canada. One of the CP users went on to state that the Canadian education system is inferior to the American system on the basis of assigned letter grades and their percentage value. Of course, any real interpretation of information was completely absent from the entry. If we used the exact same system of measurement for the exact same courses, '''and''' then assigned higher letter grades for lower percentages '''while''' attempting to pass them off as being equivalent letter grades. But, we all know that the situation I described isn't the case. I would also like to point out that your homosexuality article is heavily biased, as you omit much information on the subject altogether. While your facts are likely very accurate, there is relevant or related facts missing that prevent the whole picture from being seen.

In short, the trustworthy encyclopedia can be trusted to be Conservatively biased, and to present very basic facts that present only a very slim portion of the picture. I also trust that despite my efforts to produce unbiased work, somebody will always come along and put a conservative spin on it. I suspect your concern with WP is that it really does represent freedom and non-secularism. Unfortunately, many conservatives are in favour of the suspension of many civil liberties, and secularism. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out... --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:35, 21 December 2007 (EST)

== Unfair? ==

Isn't this article being a little unfair to Wikipedia? Yes, Wikipedia has problems, but some of the things here are really off the mark...

For instance: #73, and all other points that speak of "National Enquirer" type "gossip." How is it "gossip" that Nina Totenberg was severely injured? How is information on William Donald Schaefer (#85) "gossip" but not similar information about [[Al Gore]] on this site? And isn't "gossip" more like rumor and unsubstantiated information then verifiable facts with links to news stories?

Other entires act like Wikipedia is a concrete, unchangeable text made by one author, and that if something is left out it must be a sign of bias. See #20, Eritrea, #54, Jimmy Carter, #78, John Peter Zenger, #79, Bacon's Rebellion, and #82 the Piltdown Man. "Oh, if only there were some ''magical button'' that I could press in which I could ''add content to'' or ''delete erroneous content from'' Wikipedia. Curse you, Wikipedia, for not adding such a feature!"

And as for #77--that's totally ridiculous. Who determines what has "zero educational value?" Who determines what is "beneath a regular encyclopedia?" Aschlafly?

This is the core page of Conservapedia. A lot of editing on it will need to be done if this site wants to look credible. [[User:Cheesehead|Cheesehead]] 12:20, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::Excuse me Cheesehead, We are not the only ones who have determined how worthless Wikipedia can be...it's college professors who have done the same thing. They have cited the fact that Wikipedia is edited by amatuers who insist on being amatuer; it's edited by 15 year-old kids who write like they're in the first grade, and who demand complete control over people who can do better; and the editing is continuous for many articles, as good material gets replaced by goofy material over and over again. College professors have warned their students not to trust Wikipedia as a source at all. Do not come here and complain that WE are being unfair to Wikipedia when we have pointed this and more out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::The above has to be the most subjective dismissal of Wikipedia I've ever read. First of all, not all college professors dissuade or prevent their students from citing Wikipedia. Secondly, ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all. Now, they are invaluable as starting points that may direct you to illuminating second and third party analysises of a subject. This goes for Conservapedia as well. Wikipedia doesn't make the claim that they are authoritative. In fact, Wales has been crystal clear about that.

:::Thirdly, it's a FACT that Wikipedia is written by amateurs? Yes, a sub-population out of thousands and thousands. But, Please - This is just another baseless, misleading claim. Talk about your ad-hominems. Every single person I have ever encountered on Wikipedia has been eloquent and quite knowledgeable about the articles they cultivate - at least the registered users. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but I've been a regular editor there for three years now. These 15 year olds you speak of more than likely are the ones who edit articles on superficial pop culture or modern music. Who cares? Many articles here and there require fleshing out. It's open source and free to be edited by anyone. If you need any convincing about brilliant writing and comprehensiveness simply read any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles. Then gander at the thousands that are ranked as GA. Take your pick. Your post smacks of cynicism and prejudice that permeates this site. Don't get me wrong, I like it here, I think this place has merit and potential. If I thought differently, I wouldn't have registered an account and started editing/creating articles. And I'm not about to say that Wikipedia isn't without its flaws and foibles. Of course there are, things go on there that shouldn't, but some of your claims are downright outrageous, parochial and unilateral. Next time, try and be a little less narrow in your analysis of something which is credible and useful to many. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:35, 24 December 2007 (EST)

::::You've just proven it for all of us in your rant. ''"ALL encyclopedias (virtual or paper) are usually deemed unsuitable for referencing. No credible or illustrious scientist, scholar, theologian, historian etc..etc.. would ever encourage their students to use them exclusively, or even at all"'' Credible and useful to many as well? I don't think so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:38, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:::::::: Ok, now you're using a sort of Straw Man tactic in order to make it seem as though I'm contradicting myself. I thought it was patently obvious what I meant. In Academia no encyclopedia should be used as a primary source. HOWEVER, college students, high school students, and the general public use Wikipedia for gathering general information on a subject. More often than not, it is completely accurate. It's as simple as that. As a scientist, I wouldn't submit a manuscript for journal review with Wikipedia, Encarta or Britannica listed in my reference section. That doesn't mean they are useless or completely inaccurate. In the articles I've edited/read, the information matches up perfectly with my own personal knowledge of the subject - medicine, biology, chemistry, etc.. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 15:23, 24 December 2007 (EST)

:: Cheesehead, try to understand what [[gossip]] and [[liberal bias]] are before denying that they permeate [[Wikipedia]] entries. The nearly 100 examples in the list here reflect the approach taken and continued by [[Wikipedia]], and illustrate why so many serious contributors have abandoned [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 December 2007 (EST)

== German-American ==

The term German-American, especially in its hyphenate version typically refers to American of German descent, and not to people that hold both passport, maybe because both countries subscribe to the view that you should only have one. Just like other hyphen American in the 19th century it is commonly understood that they were Americans. So, I see no point in complaining about that fact. See the websites of German-American heritage groups for more information [http://www.germanheritage.com/][http://www.german-american.com/]. [[User:Order|Order]] 06:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: The hyphenated "German-American" implies dual nationality, or no nationality, and that is incorrect. Far less than 1% of websites use this in reference to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]], in its bias for phony [[globalism]], pushes it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, "German-American" doesn't mean DUAL nationality, it indicates the individual's country of birth, descent, heritage, and nationality. It's not a citizenship term. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:15, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: Where would an 'African-American' have a passport from? [[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:43, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: The term creates confusion about citizenship. There's no denying that. It is used in far less than 1% of the websites referring to [[Thomas Nast]]. But [[Wikipedia]] with its anti-[[American]] and [[globalist]] bias, pushes the confusing term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 28 December 2007 (EST)
:First, if you are confused about dual citizenship, then only because you don't know that Germany doesn't allow for dual citizenship. And afaik, neither does the US. Can you give us a reference for your 1% figure. I guess the confusion just arises from being unfamiliar with the phenomenon of Hyphen-American in 19th and the first half of the 20th century. In 1987 President Reagan proclaimed a German-American Day on October 6 [http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1987/100287d.htm], and from the proclamation it is obvious that it refers to Americans of Germen descent. The German heritage site list Thomas Nast as a famous German-American [http://www.germanheritage.com/biographies/mtoz/nast.html], and same holds a 1983 Presidential Commission for the German-American Tricentennial [http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga-tricentennialreport.htm]. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: No, User:Order, I'm not confused but the Wikipedia entry is designed to create confusion in the [[liberal]] direction. American citizens are American citizens, not "another country"-American. As to the 1% figure, please do your own research on [[Google]] before criticizing work done by others. Surely I don't have to explain how to compare the sites mentioning "Thomas Nast" and those claiming he was a "German-American".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Actually, Order, the US does allow dual citizenships with some countries. I actually have a triple citizenship because both my parents are foreign nationals. Even so, the suggestion that "German-American" is a confusing term is plainly ridiculous. There are plenty groups that self identify as X-Americans (Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, Arab-Americans, African-Americans, and Irish-Americans leap to mind. In fact, here's a link to the [http://www.ugac.org/ German American Heritage Foundation]. Noone seems to think this term is confusing except you, Andy. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)
: Obviously, you want to have 100 entries before the end of the year, and I can understand that you are reluctant to remove this item, but let me still answer to your comments.
:First, if you make a 1% claim, you will have to provide evidence. This is not criticizing the work of others, it is inquiring where to find the work of others. So, from what you say you used Google for you research. What were your search terms? Up to which page did you go?
:Second, I did some google for the term "German-American", and it seems all hits on the first page and 74 of the hundred hits use "German-American" in the meaning of "Americans of German descent". This use seem to be the most common.
:Finally, a presidential committee including Thomas Nast as German-American seems to be very relevant. Is there anything wrong about that report?
:[[User:Order|Order]] 21:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:: User:Order, I can see you lurching towards [[last wordism]] here, as [[liberals]] tend to do. Your "obviously" statement is out of line as I could easily increase this list of examples of bias in Wikipedia to 130 by New Year's if I wanted to. Thomas Nast on Google retrieves 175,000 sites, but Thomas Nast and "German-American" only retrieves 3,800, and only a tiny fraction of that refers to Nast himself as "German-American" rather than using the term as an adjective to "culture" or with another meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: 3.800 out of 175.000 makes 2%. But good that you told us how you got the statistics. First, you are looking for a very specific combination of phrases, namely "Thomas Nast" and "German-American". You should also mention that about only 32.400 sites use the adjective "German", so at most 20% of all site mentioning his name mention his ancestry at all. But the complaint was that the term "German-American" was used in a confusing way, and if we look at the hits for "Thomas Nast" and "German-American", we see that that at least the first 20, use "German-American" to mean American of German descent. As do most hits for "German-American". And we still got a presidential committee listing him among famous "German-Americans", which should carry some weight, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:30, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==What's Wrong With Bias?==
If an article I saw had some information missing from it, or presented in a bad way and I knew enough about the subject; I would edit it. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it?

At least Wikipedia is biased in all directions, and not just trying to do it along one single political agenda. Everyone can edit articles there to say whatever they want. If there's a majority of users who think a certain way then sure their own beliefs are going to be pandered to more. What stops you helping make their site better?[[User:User1601|User1601]] 10:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
: A lie supported by a majority does not make it true. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 28 December 2007 (EST)

: User1601, [[Wikipedia]] is '''not''' "biased in all directions." Rather, it has an overwhelming bias in one direction. The examples here confirm that. Several of the examples illustrate how attempts to edit [[Wikipedia]] to correct its bias are futile - in response, the [[liberal]] mob and bullies who run [[Wikipedia]] will restore the bias or even make it worse!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::I find it hard to support your point when you are arguing in favor of a site which much more polarized than wikipedia. -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::: Concealed bias is particularly objectionable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note that the second entry about typing "conservative" into wikipedia is not true, regardless of whether it once was or not. A page search for "anti-baby" and "anti-family" returned nothing. Second, the statement "you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion" seems rather subjective. It seemed to be a rather scholarly article regarding the general ideals of conservatives. Seeing as this is the "second" example of liberal bias in Wikipedia, this is rather damaging to the cause isn't it? Perhaps it's back down to 97.

: Wikipedia corrected its bias on the above point only after we exposed it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

well
you know
that kind of seems like a load of crap
because it doesn't exist now
and you have no way of knowing whether it was changed because you "exposed them"

{{unsigned|Echew99}}

== Renaissance: I contest point 64 ==

It is widely agreed amongst art historians that the driving force behind the Renaissance was first the rediscovery of roman art and the evolution of humanist philosophy. Christian themes prevailed because the church was one of the major funders of the artists. Also if Christianity was a major influence in the Renaissance why were mythological works produced by all four masters and most other artists? -[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 22:19, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== Formatting error in list leads to possibly unwanted inflation of count ==

I just noticed this:
{{quotebox|29. Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples have included: 
30. *pro-life Congressman Jerry Costello, merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating[38] 
31. *anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[39] 
32. *the conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, by repeating a 40 year old newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS[40] 
33. *conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS[41] 
34. In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more liberal targets, such as the Democrat Jerry Costello, or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.}}
Is it intentional that the JBS bias is stretched over six points? It strikes me as a formatting error.

I am currently not aware of a way to fix the list in the current form. The main problem is the paragraph after the last example. Without it, things would be easy to fix. In the current form, here is my suggestion (it's important not to have additional spaces in the "#:*" or "#:" parts). It looks okay and gets the point across :

#[[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#:*pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#:*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#:*the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#:*conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
#:In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.

(You can simply copy and paste the above section from the edit box here, I left the references intact.) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 08:51, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:I think that formatting is intentional, as each one catalogues a different example of bias (but all are loosely related under the same category, JBS smears). [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:43, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::I disagree because all other Examples of Bias stick to the "one theme, one number" setting and are self-contained We could move each entry freely without loss of information. Additionally. if we took each ''instance'' of a particular bias as its own number, we could easily fill up the list to a hundred using only the various articles about evolution, gun control, and so on. I don't believe that was the goal of this list. --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 13:58, 29 December 2007 (EST)

JakeC is correct. Those "entries" were originally (back in July) added as a single numbered point[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=prev&oldid=221970], and remained that way until fairly recently (three weeks ago), when they were inadvertently (it would appear) altered as part of a reformatting effort to put spaces between the hashes and the first character[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=next&oldid=346123], but in this case put them between the hashes and the asterisks. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 30 December 2007 (EST)
P.S. The last one ("In response to this criticism...") was always a separate point, so that's the way I've left it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Another example of Wikipedia silliness ==

Might it be worthwhile to add to this list the large record Wikipedia keeps of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BJAODN featured vandalism]? Also, both administrators and users [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:April_Fools go berserk] on April Fools' Day instead of acting like [[Conservapedia|a real encyclopedia]] would - that is, to treat it like any other day. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 13:39, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Regarding April Fool's Day: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor#Are_you_working_on_the_Conservapedia_Page.3F Maybe not the best idea?] (Note: The link points to the section ''above'' the one I want to link to. I mean the "Please do not v*ndalise our project templates." section. The CP spam filter doesn't allow the word "v*ndalise" to appear anywhere for some reason) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 14:18, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:For accuracy's sake, they don't update that record of vandalism. They used to keep track of the most humorous stuff, but now they only keep the page for posterity. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Zeta - if we want to go there? ==

I don't know if anyone wants to go quite so deep into the cesspit that is Wikipedia, but I'll ask anyway. [Ed. Note: remainder deleted based on application of our [[rules]]]

: You're right that it is a cesspit, and our adherence to higher standards than [[Wikipedia]] requires us to refrain from wading into every cesspit. For now, we'll pass on trying to clean up the cesspit you've identified, though I do not fault you for identifying it as such. I look forward to reviewing your substantive contributions here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)

== Organization ==

This is a long and impressive list! I think it might benefit from organizing the points under headings like: "Anti-American Bias", "Anti-Christian Bias", "Anti-Conservative Bias", and so on. This could make it easier to navigate and more powerful.

If people are interesting in this the categries and which point goes where could be worked on the talk page and then a Sysop could unprotect the page briefly so points could be placed.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 22:02, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Done. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:07, 29 December 2007 (EST)

::Thanks for your help, Ed! I should clarify however, that I was not proposing the page be edited yet. I wanted some discussion to see what should go where first. For example, under what heading should the first point, about Butto being strong Pro-life be placed?--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:01, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't be too methodical. Please pick the low-hanging fruit first. If you find a half-dozen items that go together, just put those together. Others will follow your lead. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:35, 30 December 2007 (EST)

Reorganization is fine, provided it does not dilute the entry through [[placement bias]]. For example, the entry about Bhutto is timely and compelling, and works well on the first page seen by readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:20, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Holy cow! Elkman blocked everyone who uses my IP range ==

Because I rightfully described a recent question of his as "disruptive trolling" when I reverted it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.177&diff=181119795&oldid=180656254 here]. Elkman's statement about blocking the IP range is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.135.49.211 here]. Probably won't make the list, but it's another little insight into how Wikipedia works. If you're an admin or higher, you can break all the Wiki policies you want and get away with it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:01, 31 December 2007 (EST)
: I see, though, that Elkman got overruled, if I'm reading it correctly. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:37, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes. It wasn't an official overruling, but the majority opinion was against him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 11:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::: And no apology, right? It's amazing to me how [[Wikipedia]] causes so much harm and almost never apologies or admits it was wrong. I guess that is the [[atheistic]] culture.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:38, 31 December 2007 (EST)
::::Uh, hello? I was accused of being a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=327742 sockpuppet] and was blocked for nearly two months. After being unblocked, the first thing I see is [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALardoBolger&diff=359482&oldid=299187 hostility] on my talk page. Also, the article [[liberal style]] #38 reads: "silly demands for apologies". If you're expecting those on Wikipedia to apologize for their actions, it would seem common sense to start it on your own site first. I'm not asking for an apology though, I'm merely stating a point. As for the blocking on Wikipedia, accusing a question on one's talk page as [[troll|trolling]] and then saying you want the administrator blocked for it, well, on any wiki, you're just trolling yourself, yes? (please note, I'm not liberal, atheist, or a supporter of Wikipedia, but just imagine what action would've been taken had that happened here on CP) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 12:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)

::::This is the closest I got to getting an apology: "Jinxmchue wins; I lose." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.135.49.211&diff=181148462&oldid=181148406] [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 17:51, 31 December 2007 (EST)

You forgot to mention that I ''did'' get blocked for my actions. I can't edit pages while blocked. I'm not even sure I should edit pages after the block expires, to tell the truth. I'll admit that I was wrong to place the block -- in fact, I was wrong to get involved at all. [[Sin]] is unforgivable, and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]] states that any sort of imperfection is intolerable and unacceptable, so anything else I say at this point won't help. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:12, 31 December 2007 (EST)

: Don't know why you're attacking religion here. Sin is forgivable ... to those who ask for forgiveness, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 31 December 2007 (EST)

:Um, dude. ''You blocked yourself for your actions.'' That's like a deputy locking himself up with the jail key for shooting a roomful of innocent people to catch a suspected jaywalker. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:22, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Wow. And now they're just outright lying about me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31&diff=prev&oldid=181326376 here]:

<blockquote>
he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, '''stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off'''.
</blockquote>

I, of course, never made any such statement. These guys are really pathetic. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:37, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples should be restricted ==

Examples should be restricted to issues that were corrected on Wikipedia and then reverted. Only then can you really say that Wikipedia is truly biased. Most of the examples have been corrected after their posting here on Conservapedia. This is not any kind of example of bias; in fact it's exactly the opposite: Wikipedians want to make sure their encyclopedia is as free of bias as possible, so much so that ''they go out of their way to visit Conservapedia to correct that bias.'' You have to realize that Conservapedia is not all that popular, nor are many of its topics (e.g. the page for Rick Scarborough has less than 100 edits).

It's patently unfair to call bias when it's very easy to swing the bias of Wikipedia more towards center ''by editing it your bloody self.'' [[User:Illuminatedwax|Illuminatedwax]] 16:35, 2 January 2008 (EST)
: As far as your last sentence is concerned, I've already tried that, and it doesn't work, at least not on issues for which there is a group of editors (and sysops) determined to keep the status quo. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:08, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== The last point ==
Can somebody delete the last entry as a "bias" - not only is it formatted/linked incorrectly, but such an article wouldn't ever exist on Wikipedia because it is completely non-notable and has no reliable sources. You can't create a Wikipedia article when the only coverage is another wiki like Conservapedia. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:34, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:If you meant the one I think you meant, I've deleted it, although not necessarily for the reasons that you say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Not sure why it wouldn't be for the reasons I provided. The individual was obviously upset that an article he/she created was speedily deleted - or maybe he/she was witness to it, I'm not sure. However, Wikipedia is subject to policy, and one of them is Verification from Reliable Sources. It's unchallengeable. Someone who creates an article about biases in Wikipedia and uses another Wiki as a reference shouldn't be surprised when said article is tagged for deletion. Wikipedia knows its own problems (to an extent), so the users will still try their best to adhere to NPOV, V, and NOR. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::: I didn't say that it ''wasn't'' for the reasons you said. To some extent I didn't understand both what you were getting at, and what the item was getting at (and that was one reason for deleting it). As for NPOV, see the comments that I'll make shortly in the following section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Oxford FOI statement ==

It would be only fair to include the entire Oxford reply in the item on Dawkins professorship. Also the part that says ''Since then Dr Dawkins, as he was then, was appointed to the Charles Simonyi Readership and subsequently had the title of Professor conferred in July 1996.'' Quoting selectively and omitting this sentence looks like we have something to hide. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:45, 3 January 2008 (EST)

:Is that... disclaimer being brought up and applied here again? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:55, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::It was mentioned in the revert, but we still haven't had any evidence if the disclaimer is relevant at all. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)

== Wikipedia as a knowledge base ==

I have used (and do use) wikipedia frequently however in saying that, I would never use wikipedia as a scholastic resource. I would use it to get an idea of what I wanted to look for, define search terms and maybe as a starting point for further research but I would never take it as pure truth and take what I read there with a grain of salt unless backed up with other data from various sites. Instead of mocking wikipedia non-stop as a liberal haven of half truths and lies why dont Conservapedians just see wikipedia for what it is. It is simply a knowledge base, open for all to edit. Almost like a search engine with more info, whether fact or fiction, and leave it at that. I mean why care if its liberal or not? Does it hurt anyone? If you dont like it, dont read it. [[MetcalfeM]]

: What you say could also be said about the National Enquirer and, yes, both hurt a lot of people with their gossip and distortions. The difference is that the National Enquirer does not also claim to be something better than it is. Wikipedia does claim to be neutral (a lie) and an encyclopedia (misleading).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

: Up to a point I agree with MetcalfeM. But only up to a point. I said to someone the other day that I thought Wikipedia was a good source, except in two cases. One is controversial topics, where one view often overpowers the other. And controversial topics are not exactly that rare on Wikipedia. (More in a subsequent post.) The other is obscure topics where there might be a single, or very few, contributors, who may or may not know what they are talking about and who may or may not be sufficiently objective. One point on which I strongly disagree is that it doesn't "hurt". Both gossip and misinformation can be quite harmful.

Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are. Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it. If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I do not love wikipedia however, as stated, it is a wonderful knowledge base. A collection of thoughts, ideas and, yes, facts and hearsay. To tar every editor and entry on wikipedia with the same brush is absurd. I am not American hence have not had a lot of exposure to the National Enquirer but I know all publications are subject to gossip and conjecture. You would only be mislead by wikipedia if you took wikipedia as read without looking further. By the same logic this website could be misleading if a subject posted here was not fully investigated. A point in case is the old entry which stated Einsteins theories had nothing to do with the atomic bomb. Granted it was fixed but while it was there it was misleading. As some entries on atheism here are slightly misleading.[[MetcalfeM]]

::It also depends on the subject in question. As a compendium of knowledge, some topics are aces (the sciences, popular culture etc.), others are weaker, while some are flat out atrocious. Aschlafly denounces Wikipedia because of its supposed uncontestable policy of Neutral Point of View. I don't mean to speak for him, but my perception is that he (like many others here) is convinced that this core policy is breached far too often. While I agree to an extent, I've seen hundreds of editors try their best to uphold and adhere to it. I know I do. Also, there is rampant vandalism from random anonymous users by the minute, sometimes insidious, which then goes unnoticed for far too long. However, that's what happens when you have 2 million articles. I must say though, there are measures that have been taken. Dozens of automated bots patrol Wikipedia and undue silly or vulgar vandalism, frequent page blanking etc..etc. There are also fail-safe programs/scripts such as TW and Vandalproof that hundreds of users use to fight vandalism on a consistent basis. TW is particularly useful. Anyway, my point is this: Wikipedia is useful as a starting point, to point you in the right direction. It can be entirely accurate on a majority of topics, while others, well...aren't. Biographies of living people (especially those in politics) are hit frequently with vandalism, and sometimes it's not fixed fast enough. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:48, 3 January 2008 (EST)

You have hit the nail on the head Wisdom89. As I stated, Wikipedia is fine and dandy as a starting point and will give some direction in what you are searching for. Like a search engine with information. There are many people that try to adhere to wikipedias outline of a NPOV but it is must be hard to keep all millions of articles that way.
I am just sort of astounded by conservapedias vitrol in expounding Wikipedias failings. Who cares if wikipedia is liberal when they say they are neutral, BAH! What difference does it make? Res ipsa loquitur, it is what it is. [[MetcalfeM]]

: The problem with Wikipedia's NPOV policy is, as mentioned, that it is violated too often. But we're not talking just about deliberate violation that can be reverted, but distorted thinking. I've many times seen people equate a neutral point of view with a ''scientific'' point of view (by which they mean evolution and its ilk). Yes, in their minds, they are trying for an neutral point of view. But they have a weird idea of "neutral". And this problem is not just with a few nutty editors, but with a swag of such editors ''and sysops'' who enforce this POV by sheer numbers and authority.
: And this extends to not just articles about, for example, creation, intelligent design, and evolution (where evolution is presented as true, and creation and intelligent design as false, despite the NPOV policy). In such articles there ''may'' be a token attempt to be neutral. But in articles not directly about these issues, such as an article about birds, evolution is presented as unchallenged fact. No neutrality there, yet such articles must number into the thousands.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:21, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== More admin screwups ==

I don't know if Jinxmchue has been around here lately, but he forgot to mention my latest screwup: I screwed up renaming some categories from "National Historic Landmarks of (state)" to "National Historic Landmarks in (state)".

Oh, by the way, I mentioned earlier that sins aren't forgivable. It's not an attack against religion -- if I wasn't religious, I wouldn't care about my sins or my mistakes or anything like that. Let's take a look at [[Paul]]'s letter to the Romans chapter 6:
: Romans 6:1: What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it?
: Romans 6:15: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? Of course not! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
: Romans 13:4-7: But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

I think Paul puts forth several clear arguments here about why sin isn't acceptable and why it isn't excusable for someone to sin, make mistakes, screw up, or otherwise transgress against someone. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 21:37, 5 January 2008 (EST)

: I read your first quote and see if refers to ''persistent'' [[sin]]. Do yourself a favor: open your heart and mind to what the [[Bible]] says, before you go down a path that leads to depression, anxiety and sorrow.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 5 January 2008 (EST)

:Sins aren't forgiveable? That's not the same faith that I was brought up in then! And why wouldn't you care about your sins if you weren't religious? Surely you would still care about doing wrong to others. Or are you saying that you only care about your sins for fear of divine retribution? Genuinely confused. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 16:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

:: I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either, but don't know where he "mentioned earlier" that sins weren't forgivable, so didn't know the background. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:27, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== 88. Jimbo on international editors ==

Number 88 (currently) is dubious:

: Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:[128]

:"I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.[129] Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]

You make it sound like any global project that isn't limited to Americans is automatically biased, just because political views differ throughout the world. A more reasonable position would be that an American-only wiki (such as this one effectively is) is automatically biased. [[User:Ortega|Ortega]] 18:29, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Example number 14 ==

I first posted a message regarding this example on TerryH's [[User talk:TerryH|talk page]], and he suggested that I take the discussion here.

Looking back on my [[User talk:TerryH#Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|original message]], I realize I was a bit unclear in my intentions. I don't deny that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public; that's not what I'm against. What I'm against is us making false claims about Wikipedia's citations.

In example #14, it is claimed that the sources cited say nothing about "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" of the 6 times figure. While this is correct for one of the sources cited, the other source, from TheStar.com ([http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501]) does indeed criticize the extrapolation and credibility, making #14 false.

As I said on Terry's talk, I just don't want Conservapedia filled with same kinds of inaccuracies as Wikipedia. Only the truth should reside here, nothing else.

Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 17:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:This is an issue I brought up some time ago when the example was listed as #8 - see above. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 18:40, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:: The references don't support Wikipedia's claim. To the contrary, the references tend to support Conservapedia's claim yet Wikipedia claims otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::The Star said "The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation.". I can see why people call that criticism because of poor extrapolation. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:50, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Hmmm... Perhaps something along the lines of:

<blockquote> But of the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility", only one briefly mentions extrapolation or credibility, and both instead tend to confirm the liberal bias on Wikipedia.</blockquote>

...Maybe? Well, in any case, I'll point out the small spelling error (to --> two) that needs to be fixed as well. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:05, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:It is not that briefly. The article spends three paragraphs on it. So I would can the "briefly". The other reference is to a blog, and we all know that it is bad style to quote some minor blogs to make a point. The second reference should be removed for that reason alone. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:26, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Feebasfactor, there is no spelling error. You're mistaken. User:Order is right about the reference to a blog, which is silly by Wikipedia to cite that as a reference. Moreover, Wikipedia implicitly admits we're right in example 14 because it weakened its criticism of Conservapedia on that point. By the way, no one seriously denies that Wikipedia is significantly more liberal than the American public, expect perhaps devout Wikipedia "NPOV" types.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:59, 10 January 2008 (EST)
Right, I ''was'' mistaken... I initially read the sentence differently, thinking "to articles" was intended as "two articles". Upon rereading it makes perfect sense as the former, sorry about the confusion (mine...). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::Indeed, there just few people contesting it. But that doesn't give you the freedom to use shaky statistics to come up with a number. If you want to say it is more liberal do so, and find sound evidence for that. If you want to say it is six-times more liberal, then you need to have sound evidence for the '''six-times''' as well. And the article is criticizing how you arrived at this number. You are probably taller than Danny de Vito. But if you claim that you are six times as tall, the fact that Danny de Vito isn't the tallest, is not proof for you six-times claim.
::The other reference has some criticism of the six-times figure, but only in the comments. But as said, using such a blog as source is dubious in the first place. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:18, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::: I did spend hours here debating apologists for Wikipedia over the "six times as liberal" figure. I even built entries here explaining the methodology, and refuting criticisms of it, and you can find those entries with searches. Measuring temperature, or almost anything, is never perfect and there can be constructive criticisms of any measurement. But as I recall the real articles about Conservapedia did not really doubt or criticize the figure, and certainly didn't criticize the figure in a manner claimed by Wikipedia in its entry about us. Many people, including liberals, were intrigued by the attempt to quantify how liberal something is. The intense criticism of the measurement seems to be by people who think there is something wrong with quantifying how liberal a group is. Nothing wrong with it at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 10 January 2008 (EST)

::::You're missing the point entirely. Your #14 is incorrect. Your entry is explicitly stating that the references do not criticize the derivation of the 6x's estimate. The references absolutely do. That's the problem here. One may be a blog, I'm surprised it's being used as it's not reliable, but the other is. You're misleading the readers of this article simply to inflate the number of biases. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:19, 10 January 2008 (EST)
::::Also, the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia does not use the phrasing "credibility and extrapolation" anymore - and it hasn't for some time now. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 22:22, 10 January 2008 (EST)
:::Given the time and effort that you put into defending the comparison of a poll with 3 possible answers and a representative sample to a self-identification project with 32 possible answers by a self-selected group, I did indeed wonder fairly frequently, if hadn't been easier for you to spend an afternoon on getting reliable numbers. It would have been easier and less work to do, and there would be less reason for criticism. You might get an A for persistence in a debate, but not for proper use of statistics. Yes, measurements are never perfect, but that is no excuse to measure with a rubber band. But as long as you insist on using shaky statistics you can expect that kind of criticism.
:::Anyway, the paper does criticize how you arrived at those numbers. You should be able to admit that, even if you disagree with the criticism itself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:30, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::: Which newspaper article specifically criticized our methodology for saying "6 times more liberal"? Let's look at what the article actually said.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::Among the two references there was only one newspaper, so it should be obvious that the The Star was meant. And you put the point #14 yourself up [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=316514&oldid=316513] in October, so I guess that you took a look at the references. Maybe you didn't read all of it, since the article spends three paragraphs on the six-times figure, and they are not positive. Or maybe you also just forgot since October. But are you really asking that we repeat the excerpts that are critical and sometimes even condescending towards CP and yourself here? It might give the impression that you want to get victimized, but I don't see how that would further the discussion. The Star article has been cited on this page for those that are interested. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:35, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm simply asking what specifically in the reference (the Star article is it, I suppose) that you think justifies the Wikipedia statement that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', '''a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility'''." (emphasis added)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::It says nothing about it, Andy. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:31, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::Wikipedia's article says that the statistic is criticized for its unscientific derivation, reflecting the wording in the article, and Andy, your own words. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:55, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::From the Star: "Schlafly makes a number of claims about Wikipedia. The most sensational is that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public." How does Schlafly know? He takes a list of a few hundred Wikipedia users who have self-identified as liberal compared to those who say they're conservative – about three times more. He multiples this by the fact that, he says, twice as many Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal, to come up with the number. The problem is that of the 75,000 Wikipedia users, only a few hundred have self-identified – hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation. He agrees that it's not a scientific, 'but it's the best means we have, and no one has disputed that Wikipedia editors are more liberal.'" [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 12:59, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::: First, you're quoting the statement substituted by Wikipedia ''after'' we pointed out the bias and defect in Wikipedia's harsher statement. Second, the Star article only references "unscientific" in connection with MY statement that it is unscientific. So am I the real source of Wikipedia's claim that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''"???? That's Wikipedia bias in action: twisting and turning to do anything it can to smear a [[conservative]] source, argument, person, or movement, and hence the need for this list of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: That is uttter nonsense - it doesn't matter when it was altered, either statement on Wikipedia (back months ago and what it says right now) made it patently clear that the author of the Star was being critical of YOUR derivation/extrapolation. He calls it "hardly a solid base" and "sensational". Quit trying to dismiss or dodge Conservapedia's errors by regurgitating the same old rhetoric over and over again. "Smear", "liberal bias" etc..etc.. For once admit that maybe, just maybe some of these examples are misleading, obsolete, hair splitting or flat out wrong. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:07, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: Sorry, "Wisdom", I'm afraid that you're the one in denial. Wikipedia did smear us, then changed the smear (without apology by Wikipedia or admission by you) to something less objectionable but still misleading. I admitted to the reporter that the "6 times" was not scientific, and the reporter wrote that. It is still not accurate, though not as bad as before, for Wikipedia to claim that my own admission is support for its statement that "the statistic is criticized for its '''unscientific derivation'''". Nobody ever claimed it was a scientific derivation!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:15, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: Andy, I would appreciate it if you would not condescend to me by placing my alias in quotations. Thank you. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:43, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I guess the case that Andy wants to make is that it wasn't the Star criticizing CP, but that it was Andy himself. So apparently it was Andy who called it the methodology "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", and that he himself then went on and called it "unscientific". The Star was apparently just reporting. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:04, 11 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: Yes, Andy did indeed call it "unscientific" (which it most certainly is), but it was the Star itself that reported the claim was "sensational" (the MOST sensational of them all, actually) and "hardly a solid base on which to make a calculation", unless you were just being sarcastic and I missed it : ). But still, the only thing that gives me grief is the (seemingly) sheer inability of any Conservapedia operator to just admit when something might be inapplicable or incorrect about this list. Sure there are biases on Wikipedia, but I get the feeling this is more about racking up negative points against Wiki instead of "getting the truth out". [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 21:20, 11 January 2008 (EST)

::::::::: "Wisdom", the point here concerns the prior smear by Wikipedia, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. And as to your choosing the name "Wisdom", is there an innocent explanation for that, or is it another [[liberal]] attempt to appear smarter than [[conservatives]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:00, 11 January 2008 (EST)
:::::::::::It isn't that I'm not willing to acknowledge a smear (in yours eyes), it's more like I feel you're hyperbolizing by referring to it as such. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that in its past and present form, the statements are quite fair. If you want, since I heavily contribute to that article and revert vandalism/POV on a regular basis, I can change the wording to something along the lines of "the statistic has been referred to as sensational etc..etc.." It's probably more appropriate anyway. Now, the second point. My user name. Technically, this should be of no concern of yours, and the fact that you question it as you did further solidifies my belief that liberal paranoia and antipathy permeates this site, however, I will answer it. It's completely innocent. I've gone by Wisdom89 on the internet since 1997. The only reason it was chosen was because of a gift an old friend gave me. I don't really need to go into any further detail do I? I do not feel liberals, conservatives, or moderates (whatever) are more intelligent than one another since I tend to eschew using the terms in the first place. That is the extent of it. I am liberal, if I HAD to pick a side of the spectrum, but this doesn't mean everything I say is a reflection of that term. I am my own person. Silly political vernacular doesn't define character, especially since I'm "conservative" on a number of issues. Anyway, that's enough talk about that stuff. Cheers Andy. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 09:53, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::::::::::I am bit confused about what the smear exactly is, but it seems like you take case with the assertion that you were ''criticized'' for the unscientific derivation, and not with the label ''unscientific'' itself. We all agree that the figure ''is hardly based on solid numbers'', we all agree that it is ''unscientific''. The smear seem to be the suggestion that this is ''criticism'', while it it is simply a ''fact'', and Andy was apparently the first who stated this fact. I agree, Wikipedia should take out the ''critics'', and simply state that the numbers are unscientific and hardly based on solid numbers, without any reference to the alleged ''critics''. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:03, 11 January 2008 (EST)

==Offensive Content==
Has anyone considered that Conservapedia articles might actually be fairly graphic in nature? The words "inserted anally" come up fairly frequently. [[user:hmuckabee|Hmuckabee]]

== Disruptive userboxes in wikipedia ==

Wikipedia has several disruptive userboxes. They include userboxes supporting cuba, Iraqi insurgency etc. I want to bring this fact. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

I am here giving some examples of these disruptive userboxes[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics]:
#Userbox with a text "This user believes that communism is an ideal system of government, in theory"
#Userbox with a text "This user's safety and liberty are threatened by all firearms"
#Userbox with a text "This user is pro-Cuba"
#Userbox with a text "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to resist occupation"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 2,000,000 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
#Userbox with a text "This user knows that there are 654,965 reasons why the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong"
I have given here only few examples of the disruptive userboxes which are present in wikipedia. --[[User:Dendronicus|Dendronicus]] 10:59, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Yet you leave out the hundreds of alternative user boxers. Nice going [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 11:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==nummer fortie one==
I do not get it. can sumone help me? What is wrong with 99.84% ? I guess I do not get per cents so good.--[[User:Dagg|Dagg]] 19:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)

==Ron Paul Newsletters==
The assertion that the newsletters gave tactical advice to militias is not unsubstantiated. Below are some gems found in the January 1995 issue. Maybe we need to list all of these so nobody thinks the statement is unfounded?
: Local militias called "one of the most encouraging developments in America"
: "I want to share with you these rules from the Sons of Liberty, a militia in Northern Alabama..."
: Small things are harder to find. Keep the group size down.
: If you have more than one rifle, store it in a hideaway spot. Remember to store ammunition with it, enough ammo for at least one combat load.
: Avoid the phone whenever possible, and never speak in plain English about club business.
: Destroy any documents or discs that become unnecessary.
: Most groups meet under cover of another activity: a gun club, Bible study, self-help group, even a bowling league.

:: And where is the substantiation that these are "right-wing"? It doesn't exist. This is yet another [[Wikipedia]] smear. Moreover, the adjective "tactical advice" is misleading and inflammatory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Why is it misleading? Read what I posted -- they are pieces of advice regarding tactics. Hence, tactical advice. [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 21:57, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:: I did. You should read what I posted. You didn't even quote Wikipedia's smear correctly, and the defects in your denial grow from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::I wrote some of Wikipedia's "smear", and I didn't quote anything other than "tactical advice". [[User:Paisan30|Paisan30]] 23:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-15T02:57:16Z

Paisan30: /* Ron Paul Newsletters */

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-15T02:43:48Z

Paisan30:

'''The following is a growing list of examples of [[liberal bias]], [[deceit]], silly [[gossip]], and blatant errors on [[Wikipedia]]. [[Wikipedia]] has been called the ''[[National Enquirer]] of the [[Internet]]''''':<ref>"And in that respect Wikipedia is no better than the National Enquirer. We don't quote the National Enquirer on television (unless [it's] for a documentary on aliens or some other conspiracy theory) so why would we do for Wikipedia?" [http://conservativeeccentric.blogspot.com/2007/05/wussification-of-wikipedia.html]</ref>

# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[conservative]] [[Ron Paul]] smears him with unsubstantiated statements, misleading attributions of statements (Paul renounced the statements in 2001), and an overall political hatchet job ... and then locks the page to prevent correction!<ref>The page was locked January 9th and remained locked indefinitely. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&action=history]</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she was [[pro-life]] and led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# Type in "[[conservative]]" on [[Wikipedia]] and you will be redirected to over 4500 words of confusion without any mention of [[marriage]], gun rights or personal accountability. [[Wikipedia]] even claims that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132</ref>
# The [[Wikipedia]] entry on [[conservative]] [[Rick Scarborough]] falsely claims that he said that [[HPV]], a sexually transmitted disease, is [[God]]'s punishment for sexually active young women. [[Wikipedia]] admits it has no support for this claim, yet has allowed the statement to remain in his entry for most of 2007.
# [[Wikipedia]] entries contain [[liberal]] claims followed by citations that do not actually support the claims. For example, [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Michael Farris]] states that it "was speculated that Farris' close connection to [[conservative]] leaders ... alienated some voters" in his campaign for lieutenant governor,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Farris</ref> but its citation for that [[liberal]] claim actually attributes his loss to his opponent's [[television]] ads that (falsely) claimed Farris wanted "to ban children's books such as 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Rumpelstiltskin,' and 'Cinderella'."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_n1_v15/ai_14891141</ref>
# [[Mathematicians]] on [[Wikipedia]] distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial [[Axiom of Choice]] and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of it.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_last_theorem</ref>
# In a typical example of [[placement bias]] on [[Wikipedia]], it claims in its first sentence that [[Matthew Shepard]] was murdered "because of his [[homosexuality]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard</ref> Only near the end of the entry does [[Wikipedia]] quote a 20/20 report and knowledgeable sources which provide persuasive evidence that the crime was caused by drugs, not hatred towards [[homosexuality]].
# [[Wikipedia]]'s pervasive anonymous editing vandalizes numerous [[conservative]] entries, such as that of [[pro-life]] scholar [[Mary Ann Glendon]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon</ref> For nearly two weeks her entry on [[Wikipedia]] has featured the disrespectful and unsupported statement that "She is a notable pro-life feminist, and ''a fan of the Dropkick Murphys," which is a punk rock group''. [[Liberal]] editors monitor anonymous editing, but often allow attempts to embarrass [[conservatives]] to remain for a long time.
# [[Wikipedia]] allows countless entries flattering obscure [[liberals]], but lacks many entries about leading [[conservatives]]. For example, the [[Wikipedia]] entry on pro-life leader [[Judie Brown]] is nothing but a redirect<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judie_Brown&redirect=no</ref> to an entry about an organization which barely mentions her.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Life_League</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] lies to exaggerate the credentials of [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]], falsely claiming that Dawkins "was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins</ref> In fact, [[Oxford]] recently confirmed that the "Charles Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science has not as yet been filled, although it was established in 1995 by decree."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Richard_Dawkins</ref>
# The [[Good Friday Agreement]] is called precisely that by the [[BBC]],<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/northern_ireland/understanding/events/good_friday.stm</ref> the vast majority of sites on [[Google]], politicians and the public. But [[Wikipedia]], dominated by an "anti-Christian bias, does not like [[Christian]] names and it redirects that term to the less familiar "Belfast Agreement."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Richard Sternberg]] has falsely stated that a journal "withdrew" a peer-reviewed [[Intelligent Design]] paper that he reviewed.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg</ref> In fact, the journal never withdrew the paper.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on the [[Prodigal Son]] devotes more words to obscure rock band and [[liberal media]] references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Prodigal_Son</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s [[gossip]] and policy in favor of edits by anonymous IP addresses struck again: for over two weeks the entry on former [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Byron White]] stated he was the father of former Cowboy great Danny White.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_White&diff=159734800&oldid=154431838</ref> The statement was utterly false, but misled everyone who read that.<ref>http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/Are-They-Related-213708.html</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] displays pervasive bias in making [[liberal]] statements with citations that do not support the statements, as illustrated by its entry about [[Conservapedia]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> [[Wikipedia]] states that "Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is 'six times more liberal than the American public', a statistic which has been criticized for its poor extrapolation and lack of credibility." But the two citations for this claim of "poor extrapolation and lack of credibility" are to articles that say nothing about extrapolation or credibility and instead tend to confirm the [[liberal bias]] on [[Wikipedia]].
# A user named [[Richard Dawkins]] apparently edited his own article on [[Wikipedia]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RichardDawkins</ref> and even linked to a DVD being sold from his personal website. Illustrating [[Wikipedia]]'s favoritism towards [[liberals]], it took a long time (well over a year after he first edited his own article)<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RichardDawkins</ref> for anybody to confront this well-known [[atheist]] for this conflict of interest, despite being against [[Wikipedia]]'s own rules.
# Arbitration Committee Chairman Fred Bauder told the Wikien-1 mailing list in regards to [[Michael Moore]], whose official website published attacks on a [[Wikipedia]] editor with an open invitation to vandalize [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence# Michael_Moore] and was proposed to be designated as an Attack site, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support. And by the way, I am not joking. Writing this down in black and white is important, if that is what we do in practice. And, if it not clear, I support him too, although I am not enamored of anyone's [[propaganda]]. Even that which supports my own position." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] [[Wikipedia]]'s Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view# _note-0] The editor Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]
# [[Wikipedia]] heavily promotes [[liberals]] in inappropriate places. Go to Wikipedia's entry on ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', a [[conservative]] [[Supreme Court]] decision, and for months you'd see a top-screen promotion for "gay/lesbian rights advocate" Evan Wolfson with a claim that he is "one of the '100 most influential people in the world.'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale&oldid=152256885 (quoting a 2004 [[liberal]] list by Time magazine).</ref> [[Wikipedia]] eventually removed that [[liberal]] promotion, but kept its inappropriate emphasis on this attorney who, by the way, lost this case.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has once again deleted all content on the [[North American Union]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_american_union&redirect=no]. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
# For a long time [[Wikipedia]] led with a falsehood in describing [[Conservapedia]]: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project with '''the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... '''Young Earth creationism'''."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=160604712 (emphasis added).</ref> That was defamatory in attempting to smear [[Conservapedia]] in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[evolutionist]] audience. [[Wikipedia]] also welcomes edits by anonymous IP addresses to the [[Conservapedia]] and other entries, resulting in frequent defamation.
# [[Wikipedia]] has a lengthy entry on "Jesus H. Christ,"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_H._Christ</ref> a term that is an idiotic mockery of the [[Christian]] [[faith]]. [[Wikipedia]] calls the term "often humorous," "joking" and "comedic", and relishes in repeating disrespectful uses of the term, without admitting that the phrase is an anti-[[Christian]] mockery. Meanwhile, [[Wikipedia]] does not describe mockery of any other religion as "humorous".
# The [[Wikipedia]] article on [[Eritrea]] refuses to concede that [[Eritrea]] is a one-party state.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea</ref> Another example of [[Wikipedia]] [[liberal bias]]: "Oh, they aren't really a dictatorship, their charter specifically denies it!"
# [[Wikipedia]] often inserts bias by downplaying a [[liberal]] outrage or fallacy amid thousands of words of nearly irrelevant information. For example, no one credibly disputes that [[liberals]] forced [[Larry Summers]] to resign as president of [[Harvard]] because he dared to suggest that the under-representation of women in math, science and engineering may be due to innate differences between women and men.<ref>http://www.davisenterprise.com/articles/2007/09/14/news/114new1.txt</ref><ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html</ref> But the verbose entry for Larry Summers on [[Wikipedia]] implies that his obscure other positions were more important in causing his ouster.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Summers</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] welcomes and allows edits by anonymous IP addresses, which results in rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly [[liberal]]. Credible wikis, including [[Conservapedia]], do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses.
# For nearly two months, from at least as early as July 15 through September 9, 2007, [[Wikipedia]] classified its critics, including [[Conservapedia]], as "Fanatics and Special Interests."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Wikipedia&oldid=144741567# Fanatics_and_special_interests</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] has two million entries, but not one for [[liberal]]. Users who go to that term are ''redirected'' to the Wikipedia entry on [[liberalism]] that conceals the [[liberal]] support of [[gun control]] and taxpayer funding of [[abortion]], and [[liberal]] censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberal&redirect=no</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]], its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and [[deceit]], features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceit_%28album%29</ref> The word "deceit" has no entry on [[Wikipedia]]. It was ''redirected'' to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deceit&action=history</ref> Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on [[deceit]] here.
# [[Wikipedia]] promotes suicide with 21,544 entries that mention this depravity, including many entries that feature it (Conservapedia will not provide citations to the more depraved entries on this subject at Wikipedia as Conservapedia affirms the [[Sanctity of Life|sanctity of life]]). For example, Wikipedia referred to it needlessly in the very first sentence of distinguished jurist Henry Friendly's entry,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Friendly&oldid=151873451</ref> and Wikipedia's entry about [[Zerah Colburn]] ended with a claim that his distant ''nephew'' committed suicide.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zerah_Colburn_%28math_prodigy%29&oldid=147253074</ref> After this criticism appeared here, these two entries were fixed (and in the case of Friendly, reinstated before being fixed again); there has been no system-wide removal of this bias on [[Wikipedia]]. In yet another example, [[Wikipedia]] has an entry for "suicide by cop"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop</ref> to discuss attacking a police officer to provoke a suicide, citing an unpublished PhD thesis at an obscure university.
# [[Wikipedia]] uses guilt-by-association far worse than [[Joseph McCarthy]] ever did. [[Wikipedia]] smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the [[John Birch Society]] (JBS). Examples have included:
#* pro-life Congressman [[Jerry Costello]], merely because JBS gave him a favorable rating<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerry_Costello&oldid=142488803</ref>
#* anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Schwarz&oldid=143791808</ref>
#* the conservative [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], by repeating a '''40 year old''' newspaper claim that some of its leaders once belonged to the JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons</ref>
#* conservative baseball pitcher Dave Dravecky, a cancer survivor, merely because a newspaper claimed he once belonged to JBS<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave_Dravecky&oldid=155924640</ref>
# In response to this criticism, Wikipedia removed ... only the smears against the more [[liberal]] targets, such as the ''[[Democrat]]'' [[Jerry Costello]], or the less influential entries, such as the deceased Fred Schwarz. Wikipedia left intact the smear against the most influential group. After removal of the smear against Costello, it was then was reinserted before being removed again.
# [[Wikipedia]]'s last sentence on [[Human Life International]] claimed that a killer "confessed that pamphets (sic) from the group led" him to kill. This is a complete lie designed to smear a [[conservative]] group. But this was approved by [[Wikipedia]] and remained for over a month.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_Life_International&oldid=138698827] Only in response to Conservapedia's criticism was the smear removed.</ref>
# A devastating critique of [[Wikipedia]] by [[Fox News]] describes the impact of [[Wikipedia]] smears on popular golfer Fuzzy Zoeller.<ref>In addition to the [[Fox News]] report, numerous stories on the Internet describe the smears, which we will not repeat here. "The Wikipedia entry has since been cleansed of the remarks, first posted last August, then again in December before being removed January 2nd. However, several sites like Answers.com have copies of Wikipedia entries, and as of press time still had the defamatory content in place."[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2007/02/22/fuzzy-zoeller-incensed-over-wikipedia-edit]</ref>
# Smears in [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[United States of America|U.S.]] Congressman Steve LaTourette were totally false.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1184402220217510.xml&coll=2</ref>
# "[[Larry Sanger]], who founded [[Wikipedia]] in 2001 with [[Jimmy Wales]] only to leave shortly afterwards, said that even as far back as 2001 the [[Wikipedia]] community 'had no respect for experts.'"<ref>http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/news.nv?storyid=single8794</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for [[homosexuality]] is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many [[disease]]s associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the homosexuality community, the higher incidences of [[domestic violence]] among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on [[atheism]] fails to mention that [[United States|American]] atheists give significantly less to charity than American [[Theism|theists]] on a [[Per Capita|per capita]] basis.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref> Wikipedia's article on atheism also fails to mention that [[Christianity and Science|Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science]]. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism</ref>
# Wikpedia's entry on [[liberal]] former Vice President [[Al Gore]] contains no mention of the drug charges against his son.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore</ref> But Wikipedia's entry on [[conservative]] Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry for seven weeks about [[Thad Cochran]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thad_Cochran&oldid=135420256 (revised only after being exposed on Conservapedia, but then the smear was reinserted again before being removed again)</ref> a conservative Republican member of the [[U.S. Senate]], smeared him with an offensive, unsupported quotation not of Cochran, but of a Democratic Mississippi governor for whom Cochran's mother campaigned when Cochran was age 14. The unsupported quote was never spoken or endorsed by Cochran, but Wikipedia featured it near the top of Cochran's entry to mislead the reader into thinking Cochran is somehow a racist.
# Wikipedia smears prominent [[Conservative Christianity|Christian conservatives]], including [[James Dobson]] and [[D. James Kennedy]], with an allegation that they are part of a grand scheme Wikipedia calls "Dominionism".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism</ref> The term was made up by [[liberals]] and this conspiracy theory has no factual basis, but Wikipedia smears these [[conservatives]] with elaborate templates in their own entries depicting them as part of this fictional scheme.<ref>See, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy D. James Kennedy]</ref> This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eagle_Forum&curid=3647552&diff=165330150&oldid=165044484] calls Eagle Forum dominionist, even though there is not even any source that says so.
# Wikipedia's entry about the anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[Semitic]] [[H.L. Mencken]] praises him profusely because he, Wikipedia's words, "notably assaulted America's preoccupation with [[Christian fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Christianity]]."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencken</ref> After 3,500 words of adulation, Wikipedia then buries a concession that Mencken "has been referred to as anti-Semitic and misogynistic."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Wikipedians like Mencken's hostility to religion too much to admit that his biographer (Terry Teachout) and his close Jewish friend (Charles Angoff) described him as racist and anti-Semitic.<ref>http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2003/1/mencken-payne.asp</ref>
# Wikipedia's entries about the 2007 Masters<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Masters_Tournament</ref> and its champion [[Zach Johnson]],<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zach_Johnson&oldid=154500732</ref> who won an upset come-from-behind victory against Tiger Woods, omitted any reference to Johnson's public statements crediting his [[faith]] in [[Jesus Christ]] for strengthening him as he overcame enormous odds to prevail. Months later, after criticism here, Johnson's attibution to [[Jesus Christ]] was included, but with the [[Wikipedia]] trick of placing it late in a wordy entry so that few are likely to see it, and even then with a silly "citation needed" to suggest that the quote may not be true.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Johnson</ref>
# 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."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution</ref> 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.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519145312AACvfJA&show=7</ref><ref>[[Talk:Main Page]]</ref> 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.<ref>"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</ref> 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.
# The 5,400-word Wikipedia entry on The John Birch Society<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_John_Birch_Society</ref> attempts to smear unrelated [[conservatives]] who had nothing to do with the society, simply by calling them "allies". Under that reasoning [[Ronald Reagan]], [[Pope John Paul II]], and [[George W. Bush]] should also be in that entry! And this is by a resource that criticizes [[McCarthyism]]???<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism</ref>
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. Check out Wikipedia's entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh</ref> How about a new slogan: ''Wikipedia: well, duh!''
# Wikipedia recently moved further away from Judaeo-Christian beliefs by complaining that "[t]he average Wikipedian ... is from a predominantly Christian country" and that Wikipedia was built on Christian encyclopedias and "the Jewish Encyclopedia."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias (later "predominantly Christian" was changed to "nominally Christian")</ref> At the same time, Wikipedia complains about the "enormous significance" given by entries to "Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., UK and Spain, killing slightly over 3,000 people."<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>
# Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance</ref> "A worldwide view" is fictional [[liberal]] terminology for [[globalists]].
# Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the Wikia project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/</ref>
# Wikipedia is sympathetic to Fidel Castro in its entry about Cuba.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba</ref> Wikipedia blames President Dwight Eisenhower for choosing "to attend a golf tournament" rather than meet the revolutionary Castro in 1959, and then Wikipedia claims that Castro became a communist because of the American-backed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. Conservapedia tells the truth up-front: "Cuba has been ruled by a communist dictator named Fidel Castro since 1959."<ref>[[Cuba]]</ref>
# Often Wikipedia's biased assertions are unsupported by its citations. For example, the Wikipedia entry about Conservapedia states that it "has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> But check out Wikipedia's cited source for that statement: its citation does not identify a single factual inaccuracy on Conservapedia.<ref>http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/index.php?id=1910</ref> Thus Wikipedia relies on a factual inaccuracy to accuse someone else of factual inaccuracies!
# [[Liberal]] icon [[Bertrand Russell]] receives glowing adoration on Wikipedia, which calls him "a prophet of the creative and rational life," "one of the world's best-known intellectuals" whose "voice carried great moral authority, even into his mid 90s."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell</ref> After 7,700 words about [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Wikipedia]] finally mentions Russell's support of the communist revolution, but pretends that Russell quickly opposed it. Instead, Russell wrote that "I believe that [[Communism]] is necessary to the world, and I believe ... Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind."<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]]</ref>
# [[Conservapedia]] allows greater and easier copying of its materials than [[Wikipedia]] does, but Wikipedia's entry about [[Conservapedia]] claims that its policy "has led to some concerns."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> And who supposedly had these concerns? In Wikipedia's citation, it was only the founder of Wikipedia in trying to find a way to criticize Conservapedia!<ref>http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501</ref>
# April 24th was the anniversary of [[Operation Eagle Claw]], which was President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran. The Conservapedia [[Operation Eagle Claw|entry]] explains Carter's political motivation for this. But the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry] omits Carter's political motivation and instead implies that this bad luck cost Carter the election.<ref>Wikipedia states, "The operation was a failure, and had a severe impact on U.S. President Jimmy Carter's re-election prospects ...."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw entry]</ref> In fact, Newsweek did not even mention this after July 14th, and Reagan beat Carter for reasons other than bad luck.
# Wikipedia's entry on James Monroe<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Monroe</ref> omits any mention of how he was a conservative and omits Monroe's veto of a key appropriation on the Cumberland Road Bill, when Monroe stated that "congress does not possess the power under the constitution to pass such a law."<ref>[[James Monroe]]</ref>
# Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444</ref> But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".<ref>Compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberal_Wikipedians Liberal Wikipedians] with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_Wikipedians Conservative Wikipedians]</ref> That suggests '''Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public'''.<ref>"Liberal bias" can be defined as the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group, such that no liberals would equate to zero liberal bias. Wikipedia's ratio of 3:1 for liberals to conservatives is six times the ratio in the American public of 1:2 for liberals to conservatives.</ref> See also [[liberal quotient]].
# Wikipedia awarded "good article" status<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles</ref> to a biased description of liberal Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_High_School_%28San_Francisco%29</ref> Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.<ref>Jill Tucker, "Student Successes Defy Urban Trends," San Francisco Chronicle (Aug. 16, 2006).</ref> Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
# One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many to Wikipedia, including young viewers, by viewing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics Wikipedia statistics]. But Wikipedia gives no specific warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.<ref>Wikipedia merely has a general disclaimer that avoids any reference to its sexual images, pornography, and adult content.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer]</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people (the entry also contained an unjustified picture of children for sympathy purposes, but that was removed after criticism here)</ref> Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization</ref> The Israel News Agency reports:
#: No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants."
# Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_mathematics</ref>
# In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.<ref>http://www.bede.org.uk/books,jmyth.htm</ref> Wikipedia's entry on [[Jesus]] has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</ref> But no credible historian makes such a claim.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Renaissance]] denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.<ref>Wikipedia has since updated its entry with a backhanded reference to Christianity, but even then not for inspiring the Renaissance but rather for providing subject matter for the works.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance&oldid=138439803]</ref>
# About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the [[Bible]].<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref> But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood</ref> Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark</ref>
# Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."<ref>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikimedians_by_religion</ref>
# Wikipedia's entry on [[abortion]] reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that "breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women"!<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# The Wikipedia entry for the [[Voting Rights Act]] contained (as of March 9-10) a call to participate in a political march to establish congressional representation for D.C.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act</ref> This is a longtime liberal cause prohibited by the [[U.S. Constitution]]. A conservative entry like that would be deleted by Wikipedia editors within minutes, but that entry remained until after it was criticized here.
# Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia</ref> For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for conservative physicist [[Edward Teller]] promotes the liberal attempt to blame him for the government taking away the security clearance of [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Teller testified, "If it is a question of wisdom and judgment, as demonstrated by actions since 1945, then I would say one would be wiser not to grant clearance." Wikipedia first called this statement "damning", and after criticism here replaced its term with "problematic".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller</ref> In light of how multiple spies leaked secrets under Oppenheimer's supervision in the [[Manhattan Project]] and spying even worsened afterwards, Wikipedia's spin on Teller's statement is unjustified bias.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], a conservative group, features a rant against the group by a British journalist who was a former press officer for the leftist Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons&oldid=107830399 The version] criticized above; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons the note] left by dpbsmith on the article's discussion page; the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons current version].</ref> The only cited credential for the journalist is that he works for a television "programme-production company," and there is no citation for any of the factual claims in his intemperate and misleading description of the group, which were prompted by an independent criticism in England of the journalist's own work. After receiving a complaint about this, Wikipedia trimmed this rant but still kept most of it, reflecting Wikipedia's bias. Preserving this unpublished diatribe is against Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV), but it Wikipedia administrators insist on keeping it. Wikipedia's entry also features another liberal journalist's swipe at AAPS from ... 40 years ago!
# There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war [[Bell Trade Act]] of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."<ref>This phrase was removed from Wikipedia only after this criticism was posted here. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Trade_Act</ref> The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.
# Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of [[deism]] by [[Benjamin Franklin]] by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the [[Constitutional Convention]] for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deist_thinkers</ref> an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of ''[[Pilgrim's Progress]]'' in his autobiography.
# Wikipedia's entry on the Intelligent Design court decision in ''Dover''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District</ref> 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,<ref>''Id.''</ref> and (iii) his opinion relied heavily on another decision that was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Id.''</ref>
# Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the [[National Enquirer]]. For example, Wikipedia's entry, "Nina Totenberg", states, "She remarried in 2000 to Dr. H. David Reines, a trauma surgeon and vice chairman of surgery at Inova Fairfax Hospital. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nina_Totenberg&oldid=171577028 Nina Totenberg - Wikipedia]</ref> That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.
# Edits to include facts against [[Theory of Evolution|the theory of evolution]] are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] are respected to the maximum extent possible.
# 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."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view</ref> 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".<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia]</ref> 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.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&action=history</ref>
# Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia Criticism of Wikipedia].
# Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".<ref>Simply search "Moby" and "song" together on Wikipedia.</ref> Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
# The Wikipedia entry for [[John Peter Zenger]] links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer," which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable.
# Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about [[Indentured Servitude]] is massive, but it omitted any reference to [[Bacon's Rebellion]], which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World! Finally, weeks after this glaring omission was noted here, Wikipedia added one line to its entry: "Indentured servants in Virginia supported Bacon's Rebellion in 1676."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indentured_servant&diff=115675763&oldid=113879992</ref>
# 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,<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution Talk:Evolution - Wikipedia]</ref> 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."
# Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]] until this omission was pointed out here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_proof</ref> Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
# 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.
# Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of [[Jesus]], so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the [[CE]] deception.
# Wikipedia's article on [[Feudalism]] is limited to feudalism in Europe and did not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India until this defect was described here.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism</ref>
# Wikipedia's article on the longest-serving and most powerful Maryland official in its history, [[William Donald Schaefer]], contains about 1900 words, but over two-thirds of those words (1400/1900) are devoted to silly gossip, outright vulgarity and National Enquirer-type material.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Donald_Schaefer</ref> 406 words, which is over 20% of the entire entry, is devoted to a silly dispute Schaefer had one day with the local newspaper!
# Wikipedia's article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story whose only point seems to be to indicate the degree of his ex-wife's bitterness toward him. The article spells his wife's name incorrectly, and cites no source for the item. The item has been in that state since it was first inserted in May 2006.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Tower&oldid=101859325 John Tower], revision as of Jan 25</ref> No real encyclopedia would print such silly gossip.
# Wikipedia's entry for the [[National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act]] (NCVIA) reads like an advertisement for vaccine manufacturers, including unsupported and implausible claims about vaccination.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act</ref> Unsupported claims featured there include "Vaccine makers indicated they would cease production if their proposal for the NCVIA was not enacted" and "concern that the NCVIA may not provide an adequate legal shield." Wikipedia's entry omits references to leading pro-parent websites concerning vaccination,<ref>http://www.909shot.com/</ref> and instead Wikipedia's entry lists pro-government and pro-vaccine-manufacturer websites. Wikipedia's entry even includes this entire paragraph, which is unsupported and is little more than an advertisement for drug companies:
#: Public health safety, according to backers of the legislation, depends upon the financial viability of pharmaceutical companies, whose ability to produce sufficient supplies in a timely manner could be imperiled by civil litigation on behalf of vaccine injury victims that was mounting rapidly at the time of its passage. Vaccination against infectious illnesses provides protection against contagious diseases and afflictions which may cause permanent disability or even death. Vaccines have reduced morbidity caused by infectious disease; e.g., in the case of smallpox, mass vaccination programs have eradicated a once life-threatening illness.
# Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royalty, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system, such as references to "double first degree." The entry on [[Henry Liddell]] illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell</ref> That entry fails to tell us when Liddell was dean of Christ Church, Oxford and has a grammatical error in its first sentence, yet describes in painstaking detail four obscure royal titles for Liddell's relatives and his "double first degree" in college. The casual reader of that entry wouldn't even notice a buried reference (well after a description of all the royal lineage) to Liddell's primary claim to fame: his daughter Alice inspired [[Alice's Adventures in Wonderland]]. The arcane English descriptions in many Wikipedia entries may be due to its copying, verbatim, passages from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This copying was not disclosed in the debate in late 2005 about whether Wikipedia was as reliable a resource as the Encyclopedia Britannica.<ref>http://news.com.com/Study+Wikipedia+as+accurate+as+Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html</ref>
# Robert McHenry, former Editor-in-Chief for the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', wrote about Wikipedia's bias and included this observation:
#: "One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth – whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to – is not democratically determined."<ref>http://www.opendemocracy.net/media-edemocracy/wikipedia_bias_3621.jsp</ref>
# Bob Schmidt observed on the ''Illinois Review'':<ref>http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/conservapedia_w.html</ref>
#: I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.
#: I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.
#: They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.
#: In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.
#: Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.
# Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, admitted the following understated bias in an interview in 2006:<ref>http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/email_debatewales_discusses_po.html</ref>
#: "I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that." [Conservapedia editor: why not? Wales admitted that only about 615 editors are responsible for over 50% of the edits on Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=2</ref> Why doesn't Wikipedia survey these editors? Is this deliberate indifference to bias?]
# Many people know how a prominent Tennessee journalist [[John Lawrence Seigenthaler]] was defamed for four months on Wikipedia before it was corrected. He described and criticized this in ''USA Today'', concluding with the following:<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm</ref>
#: When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people."
# What most people don't know is how many Wikipedia editors savaged [[Seigenthaler]] ''afterwards'' on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him:<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
#: "Mr. [[Seigenthaler]]'s attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," said one typical comment. "[He] has the responsibility to learn about his own name and how it is being applied and used, as any celebrity does on the Internet and the world-at-large. Besides, if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it on Wikipedia. Everyone fails to understand that logic." Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat. He's causing Wikipedia a lot of trouble, on purpose."
# The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, described "serious and endemic problems" in Wikipedia in a document entitled "Toward a Compendium of Knowledge" (Sept. 2006). Sanger observed that Wikipedia editors do not enforce their own rules consistently or effectively and that it has become an "arguably dysfunctional community" unattractive to traditional experts. Sanger declared the Wikipedia community's response to the Seigenthaler incident to be "completely unacceptable."<ref>http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/citizendium.ars</ref>
# Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:
#: "You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys." — Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.
# Wikipedia's entry for [[Johnny Appleseed]], a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed</ref>
# In an example of pro-homosexuality bias, the category allowing users to self identify as Heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007# Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for Homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007# Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept].

----

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

'''Guidelines for inclusion''':
* Each entry must include a <code>diff</code> which shows the content being posted, and the user that posted it.
* Avoid mentioning posts that were made by new Wikipedians or anonymous Wikipedians, unless their biased edits were not reverted after a substantial amount of time.
[[category:wiki]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2008-01-15T02:42:58Z

Paisan30: