ilovefuzz.com

wfs1234 wrote:http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia

I guess these people had to make their own website because Wikipedia has too much of a liberal bias.

this can't be serious

"Wikipedia's article on engineering features a photo of ... an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient liberal boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering."

"The Wikipedia entry on baraminology (a form of taxonomy) describes it as "pseudoscience" and "unrelated to science" simply because it is based on the Holy Bible."

"Wikipedia's article on Martin Luther King Jr. is extensive. There is little doubt that King was known for civil rights. However, Wikipedia fails to recognize King's main 'Influence', Jesus Christ. King's life was Jesus from day one, his entire life was Christ inspired. "

Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic President Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion

I'm afraid it's all too serious. http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity

Notice how half of their qualms are simply that certain articles about people don't mention their religious affiliation early enough, or at all. Maybe they should just have a column right at the top of the page with their religious views. Maybe they should just separate all articles by religious denominations. Maybe everybody should just wear some kind of a symbol so we know what religion they are...(what's that thing saying Nazi's will enter a discussion at some point?)

Also, this. I guess saying "mother with child" is the only correct phrasing and "expecting a child" is a bunch of liberal, baby killing, feminist malarkey. Either that, or they just don't like big word.

don't forget that the constitutional convention article wasn't about the ours but conventions in general thus diminishing it's importance

a better, and less silly, example of Wikipedia's pervasive leftist bias is the long and speculative article on the supposed General Motors "conspiracy" to shut down the Los Angeles trolley system, which claims that GM was convicted of this conspiracy when the only thing they actually were convicted of was wanting to sell GM buses to their wholly-owned transit lines, and there has never been any evidence shown for any motive to close the rail lines other than the painfully obvious one that you have to pay to maintain trolley track while buses run on streets paid for by the taxpayer and it's thus obviously far cheaper to run buses. it's become an urban myth so pervasive that it even serves as the hinge for the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, despite the fact that it's a lie that was promulgated by Ralph Nader's people in the early 70s and survives because it's too good to check. but you'll never find out that GM was cleared in a public trial of conspiring to shut down the trolleys if you read Wikipedia; you have to go to other sources.

fuck social norms, seriously. they make me feel like shit, just because i dont want to be like u dhouldnt mean that i feel like shit after having a fun tiume

Reminds me when I first heard that boulevard crap it was in the portuguese radio and they were fading back and forth between that and wonderwall. Hilarious.

Hate: The germs that made me sick and my work which sucks even more when you are half sick.

maz, if I were there, I for sure would've made a request for Hey There Delilah

dubkitty wrote:a better, and less silly, example of Wikipedia's pervasive leftist bias is the long and speculative article on the supposed General Motors "conspiracy" to shut down the Los Angeles trolley system, which claims that GM was convicted of this conspiracy when the only thing they actually were convicted of was wanting to sell GM buses to their wholly-owned transit lines, and there has never been any evidence shown for any motive to close the rail lines other than the painfully obvious one that you have to pay to maintain trolley track while buses run on streets paid for by the taxpayer and it's thus obviously far cheaper to run buses. it's become an urban myth so pervasive that it even serves as the hinge for the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, despite the fact that it's a lie that was promulgated by Ralph Nader's people in the early 70s and survives because it's too good to check. but you'll never find out that GM was cleared in a public trial of conspiring to shut down the trolleys if you read Wikipedia; you have to go to other sources.

I'm too tired to reread this to see if you're sarcastic or not, but I just want to state that because wikipedia is open for any one to edit and contribute, of course any entry will carry the authors' bias. That is a reasonable statement. Saying that wikipedia as an organization strives to create a database and actively propogate false information based on some liberal agenda is paranoid nonsense. I hate anybody who thinks that "they" are out to get them. Conspiracy theorists(whether it be corporate or governmental or otherwise) are just sacks of shit who don't realize how insignificant they really are. blah blah blah tangential rant blah.

Work sucked: I come in and the cash drawer is exactly $9 less than what the guy before wrote it was which was already absurdly low so I have to dick around with that(how you make up $9 is beyond me, but from what I've been hearing this guy is so incompetent he'd give Picard a concussion). I go to the coffee counter to find the cappuccino machine has been leaking at a slow drip for fucking hours and nobody seemed to notice, so now there's a giant puddle that I have to clean up and try to figure out what's wrong with the machine. Oh, and it's snowing like fucking crazy and the shovels have all been locked away. I have to go out in the cold windy snow and throw salt around all the while dealing with customers. Then I find out I'm expected to be working six days next week and maybe even the next too(at least I get time and a half that extra day) unless they hire somebody new in the next few days. rant rant rant, at least it's over for now and I have pizza and beer and sleep.

there are many examples of articles which retain leftist bias, or even have it added, despite repeated attempts at correction; this can be seen by reading the editing history of the particular article. you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to account for the fact that closed groups, such as the Wikipedia moderators, who generally share a particular bias will allow it to affect their work whether deliberately or because they simply don't recognize the bias inherent in their worldview. the silliness of the "conservative Wiki" is a whole different thing...they seem to think that the sole purpose of references is to debunk things with which they disagree.

snipelfritz wrote:at least it's over for now.

This is my work mantra.

dubkitty wrote:you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to account for the fact that closed groups, such as the Wikipedia moderators, who generally share a particular bias will allow it to affect their work whether deliberately or because they simply don't recognize the bias inherent in their worldview.

pretty much this. it is virtually impossible for wikipedia to be bias free because most people have strong biases, whether they realize it or not. and it just so happens that wikipedia's average editors and moderators all share similar biases.

but the absurdity of critiquing wikipedia for having a liberal bias then making an encyclopedia dedicated to conservative bias is just a special kind of stupid.

no argument there.

Stupid HP not providing a windows 7 compatible driver for an obsolete scanner.

unownunown wrote:

dubkitty wrote:you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to account for the fact that closed groups, such as the Wikipedia moderators, who generally share a particular bias will allow it to affect their work whether deliberately or because they simply don't recognize the bias inherent in their worldview.

pretty much this. it is virtually impossible for Wikipedia to be bias free because most people have strong biases, whether they realize it or not. and it just so happens that Wikipedia's average editors and moderators all share similar biases.

I think you're missing my point. One person, or a group of people, operating independently within the same boundaries based on different sets of values(aka biases) is not the same as the entire organization having a bias, whether deliberate or intentional. Conservapedia seems to imply the latter giving no consideration to the mere size of Wikipedia and impossibility of moderators to monitor and fact-check every single piece of information. It all comes down to the next great debate of our society: How responsible are website operators for materials posted on that site by non-affiliated users?(think Craigslist sex scandal)

Straw-man allegory: A group of Muslim extremists perpetrate acts of extreme violence, therefore Islam is a violent and dangerous religion.
More relevant Straw-man allegory: News media has a liberal bias. FOXNews is news media. FOXNews doesn't have a liberal bias, but still, all news media has a liberal bias.

My point is, if you can't prove your point works 100%(even if it's 99.9999...%) then it's incorrect to make it as an outright statement of fact without an implied statement of uncertainty. Synecdoche doesn't apply when it comes to logic and argumentation. I'm not saying there aren't Wikipedia mods with an overwhelming bias, but without even knowing who these people are, it seems strange to generalize them in any way and then, based on that generalization, to generalize all of Wikipedia. I think that makes sense

I hate that whenever I have good arguments(in a constructive rhetorical sense) like this, whether in real life or not, at some point somebody always has to butt in and make it a point to stop the debate just because it's too intelligent for them to understand and they think any kind of disagreement should be avoided at all times. In ancient Greece, people would watch others having intelligent debates as entertainment. Call me crazy, but intellectual stimulation is fun.

Also, it's really annoying that spell-check recognizes Wikipedia, but it doesn't recognize synecdoche as a real word.

EDIT: The size of this post made me for myself