Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

The following is a growing list of examples of liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia.

1. Conservapedia posted the news about liberal corruption of global warming science (climategate) on its Main Page on the very first day: November 19th. But it took Wikipedia over two weeks to give priority to this bombshell, and even now its entry is remarkably biased against it.
2. Isaac Newton translated parts of the Bible, and considered this effort to be the source of his scientific insights, yet Wikipedia's 10,000-word entry completely omits this.
3. The "Pioneer anomaly" contradicts both the theory of relativity and Newtonian gravity, but the Wikipedia article describes it as a potential defect for only Newtonian gravity.
4. Wikipedia uses anti-religious examples for its entry on "argumentum ad populum" (Latin for claiming that something is true if it is popular). Conspicuously absent from Wikipedia's examples are atheistic arguments based on popular opinion, such as misleading people into thinking the theory of evolution must be true if others accept it.
5. Wikipedia's article on engineering features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient liberal boondoggle [NOT IN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY ARE SUITED TO WORK, FOR EXAMPLE IN BRITAIN] and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the United States because they are not competitive, die to the shape of The Earth. However, in places were the sea is shallower, they are very compeitive and useful.
6. Amid the libel controversy against Rush Limbaugh during his bid to purchase an NFL team, the St. Louis Rams, Newsbusters revealed the false quote's Web source appeared to be from Wikipedia. The quote has been removed and replaced several times since 2005. And the Wikipedia entry did not provide a transcript link to Limbaugh's show with the citation, because the quote did not exist but was part of a bias strategy by Wikipedia to label Limbaugh a racist. While the talk host criticized the website that bills itself as an "online encyclopedia," Wikipedia editors were busy discussing their strategy for handling the controversy. It was later revealed that the quotes were added by a highly controversial, bias user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146.
7. Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world, but there is no article about pro-abortion violence, like that which resulted in the September 11, 2009, death of peaceful protester Jim Pouillon. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence" and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Pro-life movement" article section about "Term controversy." Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion. For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
8. Wikipedia omits that there are serious contradictions within and objections to the Theory of Relativity, instead presenting it as scientific gospel. (Example of contradictions and objections needed.)
9. Wikipedia lists Factcheck.org as a "non-partisan" "'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics." However, two attempted edits were deleted pointing out factcheck.org falsely claims that Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama) has produced his birth certificate: "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." This claim contradicts the fact that the document they refer to is a copy of a Certificate Of Live Birth, produced in 2007, as opposed to a Birth Certificate. While later in the page, it states that detractors claim it is a "'certification of birth', not a 'certificate of birth'" (actually "Certificate Of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" respectively). Factcheck.org clouds the verbage by getting the actual terms wrong and presenting the two items as synonymous.
10. Wikipedia's article about Bernhard Riemann, perhaps the greatest modern mathematician, contains little discussion of Riemann's faith and tries to downplay his fundamentalism as though it were merely a passing interest as a teenager.
11. Wikipedia savages anyone who criticizes the theory of evolution, such as Dr. William Dembski, whom Wikipedia introduces with outlandish, unsupported quotations by liberal critics. For example, Wikipedia describes David H. Wolpert as a "prominent mathematician" in order to insert a scathing, unjustified quotation by him about Dembski. In fact, Wolpert does not even hold a math degree and his (non-math) doctorate was from the University of California at the weak Santa Barbara location. Dembski's PhD is in math from the preeminent University of Chicago.
12. Noting that Al Gore's 2009 statement that he won a 2007 British court case about An Inconvenient Truth ran contrary to the actual ruling and, especially, the judge's statement that the claimant won the case against the film is considered "original research" and "POV" on Wikipedia.
13. Wikipedia often treats conservative figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal double standard. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia.
14. Wikipedia cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about Conservapedia claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy," but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims.
15. Wikipedia bias against movement conservatives is intense. Michele Bachmann won reelection in 2008 by 3% in a state that went heavily Democratic, but instead of crediting her conservative positions the biased Wikipedia entry states, "Despite fallout from controversial statements that she had made, Bachmann defeated her Democratic opponent Elwyn Tinklenberg in the 2008 election."
16. In its entry on the heavily Christian Gothic architecture, Wikipedia credits Islam before Christianity, does not even mention Christianity until after more than 1500 words, and then does not mention Christianity again.
17. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue, journalist Joseph Farah supports his observation that Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."
18. Wikipedia's evolution article certainly does not have robust and relevant "Criticism and controversy" section its evolution article which is not surprising since liberals are rather enamored of the evolutionary position despite the evolutionary view having a total lack of evidence supporting it.
19. Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that American atheists give significantly less to charity than American theists on a per capita basis even when church giving is not counted for theists. In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention how key proponents of atheism have been deceptive. Wikipedia's article on atheism also fails to mention that Christianity and not atheism was foundational in regards to the development of modern science. Wikipedia's article attempts to associate atheism with scientific progress. In addition, Wikipedia's article on atheism fails to mention that atheism is a causal factor for suicide.
20. The Wikipedia entry for homosexuality is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual 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."
21. Wikipedia editors regularly and fiercely alter the use of the terms "he" or "she" in articles regarding cross-dressing/transsexual figures. Men attempting to pass as females are near-universally referred to as "she" while women attempting to pass as men are referred to as "he", despite this usage absolutely incorrect in both scientific and legal senses.
22. Wikipedia made no mention of the fact that President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder called the United States a "nation of cowards" when it comes to the discussion of race until about two weeks after Holder insulted America. In typical Wikipedia fashion, it was made to sound as if only conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh objected to the attorney general's crass insult and obvious contempt for the citizens of the United States of America. As of 3/8/09, there is no mention on Wikipedia of Obama's rebuke of Holder's "cowards" insult or of the fact that Holder wants an assault weapons ban.
23. Alma mater normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. However, at Wikipedia, the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. Sean Hannity attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative.
24. The Wikipedia page for Republican Mark Kirk made no mention of the widely-reported and significant fact that, as a Navy reservist, he is the first U.S. Representative since WWII to make an overseas deployment to an imminent danger area (Afghanistan). Instead, the Wikipedia page devotes an entire section titled "contributors" that attempts to smear Kirk with tenuous associations to controversial figures because of relatively small campaign donations. A grammatically-incorrect acknowledgment of Kirk's deployment eventually appeared. Kirk's wikipedia page mentioned a $1,000 donation from Tony Rezko , but Obama's page does not mention the $54,416 Rezko donation. Only after this issue was brought up were issues corrected.
25. Wikipedia smears conservative groups with prominent "Criticism and controversy" sections, usually featuring name-calling by obscure groups, but Wikipedia flatters liberal groups by downplaying what it euphemistically entitles as "Controversial stances."
26. Wikipedia's entry about the Christian martyr at Columbine refuses to admit that she was murdered by an atheist as she was expressing her faith in God, as confirmed by multiple witnesses. Wikipedia is dominated by atheistic public school students who would be particularly biased against this truth.
    • Version of May 12, 2009:

      Initial reports suggested that one of the assailants, either Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold, asked Bernall if she believed in God moments before fatally shooting her. She was reported to have answered "yes". [1]

27. Wikipedia's entry about Conservapedia contains four unsupported smears in its very first sentence, and conceals from readers how Conservapedia offers free online courses for teenagers. The result of this bias by Wikipedia, which raises money as a charity, is the concealing and demonizing of a free learning resource that Wikipedia itself does not offer.
28. Wikipedia's entry on the Scopes trial downplays the fact that Darrow cowardly reneged in his agreement to take the witness stand, and pled his client guilty in order to avoid it. Instead, Wikipedia deceptively claims that "Darrow asked the judge to bring in the jury only to have them come to a guilty verdict."
29. California's Proposition 8 states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The Wikipedia article does not mention that only those marriages are recognized under federal law anyway, and editors have removed any mention of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
30. The articles on both Saul Alinsky and his book, Rules for Radicals make no mention of his dedication to "the original radical—Lucifer."
31. Augusto Pinochet, who overthrew communism in Chile and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a "dictator" by Wikipedia, but Fidel Castro, the communist dictator of Cuba for four decades, is instead called a "leader" or even a "president".
32. 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.
33. Wikipedia's entry on Gardasil, an HPV Vaccine promoted by liberals and Merck, is filled with falsehoods and omits key facts. As of Aug. 9, 2008, Wikipedia's entry claimed that cervical cancer was "the second leading cause of death from cancer in women world-wide" (which is nonsense), and that the "HPV types 16 and 18 cause about 70% of cervical cancer cases" (not even Merck claims that); the entry downplays how the vaccine loses its effectiveness in a few years, and only about 3% of teenage recipients are likely to be exposed to the strains of HPV that the vaccine targets - at a cost of about $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer that does not arise until 30 years in the future.
34. Wikipedia tries to smear conservatives as "conspiracy theorists," even when they are not, and yet omits that epithet for liberals who insist there are vast conspiracies, such as Hillary Clinton's claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Compare Wikipedia's entry on Phyllis Schlafly, which repeats a false assertion that she "veers off into conspiracy theories," with Wikipedia's entry on Hillary Clinton, which provides her quote of a "vast" conspiracy yet refuses to describe her as a conspiracy theorist. Wikipedia's entry on liberal Michael Moore, the biggest conspiracy theorist of all, does not even include any reference to the word "conspiracy"!
35. The Wikipedia page on Phyllis Schlafly implies that she took a stance in favor of segregation in 1960, and that she used Jewish code words. The source is a NY Times book review of a book about her, but the review does not say those things. The book review criticizes the book author instead. The Wikipedia article does not identify the book reviewer as Jewish, even tho she is a Jew raising a Jewish issue. A user who tried to correct these errors was blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, and a comment was even removed from the Talk page.