Leftist bias in Wiki

[Calypso Jones]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

The project was initiated by atheist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist) and entrepreneur (http://www.conservapedia.com/Entrepreneur) Jimmy Wales (http://www.conservapedia.com/Jimmy_Wales) and the agnostic (http://www.conservapedia.com/Agnosticism) philosophy (http://www.conservapedia.com/Philosophy) professor (http://www.conservapedia.com/Professor) Larry Sanger (http://www.conservapedia.com/Larry_Sanger) on January 15, 2001.[3] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-2) An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".[4] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-3) Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Journalism) Joseph Farah (http://www.conservapedia.com/Joseph_Farah) stated 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."[5] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-4) Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.[6] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-5) In December of 2010, Christian apologist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian_apologetics) JP Holding (http://www.conservapedia.com/JP_Holding) called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".[7] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-6) Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.[8] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-7)


Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.




Contents [hide (javascript:toggleToc())]


1 List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#List_of_examples_of_ liberal_bias_in_Wikipedia)
2 Examples of Bias (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Examples_of_Bias)

2.1 Abortion (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Abortion)
2.2 Anti-Christianity (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Anti-Christianity)
2.3 Bestiality/zoophilia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Bestiality.2Fzoophil ia)
2.4 Conservapedia smears (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Conservapedia_smears )
2.5 Conservative personalities and politicians (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Conservative_persona lities_and_politicians)
2.6 Criminals and mentally ill editors (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Criminals_and_mental ly_ill_editors)
2.7 Ethnic and racial bias (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Ethnic_and_racial_bi as)
2.8 Gender bias (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Gender_bias)
2.9 Global warming (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Global_warming)
2.10 Homosexuality (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Homosexuality)
2.11 Internet policies (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Internet_policies)
2.12 Journalists (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Journalists)
2.13 Liberal Politicians (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Liberal_Politicians)
2.14 Mathematics and Engineering (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Mathematics_and_Engi neering)
2.15 Obama (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Obama)
2.16 Paid Editing (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Paid_Editing)
2.17 Pornography / Sexuality (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Pornography_.2F_Sexu ality)
2.18 Public Policy in the United States (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Public_Policy_in_the _United_States)
2.19 Science and Evolution (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Science_and_Evolutio n)
2.20 Sports (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Sports)
2.21 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Conspiracy_Theories)
2.22 Naziism, Socialism, Communism (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Naziism.2C_Socialism .2C_Communism)
2.23 General/Uncategorized (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#General.2FUncategori zed)

[Common Sense]

LOL...Conserveapedia.

Now there is a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia".

[Peter1469]

I don't think it take much to become a Wiki editor.

[Safety]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

The project was initiated by atheist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist) and entrepreneur (http://www.conservapedia.com/Entrepreneur) Jimmy Wales (http://www.conservapedia.com/Jimmy_Wales) and the agnostic (http://www.conservapedia.com/Agnosticism) philosophy (http://www.conservapedia.com/Philosophy) professor (http://www.conservapedia.com/Professor) Larry Sanger (http://www.conservapedia.com/Larry_Sanger) on January 15, 2001.[3] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-2) An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".[4] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-3) Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Journalism) Joseph Farah (http://www.conservapedia.com/Joseph_Farah) stated 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."[5] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-4) Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.[6] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-5) In December of 2010, Christian apologist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Christian_apologetics) JP Holding (http://www.conservapedia.com/JP_Holding) called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".[7] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-6) Although Wales "made his original fortune as a pornography trafficker," he has since tried to clean up his image and demands retractions when people report this fact.[8] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#cite_note-7)


Most examples have been moved to the sublists. Please visit the sublists to learn about the variety of bias in Wikipedia.




Contents [hide (javascript:toggleToc())]


1 List of examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#List_of_examples_of_ liberal_bias_in_Wikipedia)
2 Examples of Bias (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Examples_of_Bias)

2.1 Abortion (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Abortion)
2.2 Anti-Christianity (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Anti-Christianity)
2.3 Bestiality/zoophilia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Bestiality.2Fzoophil ia)
2.4 Conservapedia smears (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Conservapedia_smears )
2.5 Conservative personalities and politicians (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Conservative_persona lities_and_politicians)
2.6 Criminals and mentally ill editors (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Criminals_and_mental ly_ill_editors)
2.7 Ethnic and racial bias (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Ethnic_and_racial_bi as)
2.8 Gender bias (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Gender_bias)
2.9 Global warming (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Global_warming)
2.10 Homosexuality (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Homosexuality)
2.11 Internet policies (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Internet_policies)
2.12 Journalists (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Journalists)
2.13 Liberal Politicians (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Liberal_Politicians)
2.14 Mathematics and Engineering (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Mathematics_and_Engi neering)
2.15 Obama (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Obama)
2.16 Paid Editing (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Paid_Editing)
2.17 Pornography / Sexuality (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Pornography_.2F_Sexu ality)
2.18 Public Policy in the United States (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Public_Policy_in_the _United_States)
2.19 Science and Evolution (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Science_and_Evolutio n)
2.20 Sports (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Sports)
2.21 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Conspiracy_Theories)
2.22 Naziism, Socialism, Communism (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Naziism.2C_Socialism .2C_Communism)
2.23 General/Uncategorized (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#General.2FUncategori zed)






Great, now one can be on the wrong side of history on the internet.

[PolWatch]

LOL...Conserveapedia.

Now there is a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia".

That's like asking the RNC about the dems or the DNC about the repubs.....:rollseyes:

[Common Sense]

I don't think it take much to become a Wiki editor.

You're right. All you need is a computer and access to the internet.

[Green Arrow]

Translation: Wikipedia contains facts that I disagree with and that make me uncomfortable. Therefore, it's biased towards liberals.

[Bo-4]

Conserv-o-pedia?

:rofl:

[Bob]

I don't think it take much to become a Wiki editor.

Read how they talk about Barry Goldwater.

It is yellow journalism.

[Bob]

Translation: Wikipedia contains facts that I disagree with and that make me uncomfortable. Therefore, it's biased towards liberals.

Before you boost Wikipedia, don't you want to study this more?

I read the stuff they say about Barry Goldwater and the article talks like it was written by some Democrat propagandist.

[Bob]

That's like asking the RNC about the dems or the DNC about the repubs.....:rollseyes:

Where does Wikipedia present the DNC in a negative light?

[PolWatch]

Where does Wikipedia present the DNC in a negative light?

where was I talking about Wikipedia?

[Safety]

Before you boost Wikipedia, don't you want to study this more?

I read the stuff they say about Barry Goldwater and the article talks like it was written by some Democrat propagandist.


I'm sure the David Duke or the Jesse Helms section reads like a children's lullaby also.

[Peter1469]

You're right. All you need is a computer and access to the internet.

I think you have to apply. I never tried. But one of my geek friends did.

[Peter1469]

Read how they talk about Barry Goldwater.

It is yellow journalism.

Non-contraversial topics are fine on wiki.

I never expect that people take everything they read at face value.

My bad.

[Bob]

where was I talking about Wikipedia?

Were you talking of the DNC? I hope you know the topic of this thread.

[Green Arrow]

Read how they talk about Barry Goldwater.

It is yellow journalism.

It's not yellow journalism because Wikipedia is not journalism.

[Safety]

Non-contraversial topics are fine on wiki.

I never expect that people take everything they read at face value.

My bad.

I guess some should stick to chain-emails.

[Bob]

It's not yellow journalism because Wikipedia is not journalism.

Sorry, I figured YOU would get it. Sorry again.

[del]

I guess some should stick to chain-emails.

they're always more reliable

[Bob]

I'm sure the David Duke or the Jesse Helms section reads like a children's lullaby also.

Are you fans of those two?

[Safety]

Are you fans of those two?

Not at all, but they are a good read.

[Green Arrow]

I don't understand the issue of Wikipedia not presenting entities like the DNC in a "negative" light. It's an online encyclopedia, it's not supposed to portray anything in any light, negative or positive. It's only supposed to state facts.

Also, I don't know why Bob thinks a Democrat propagandist wrote the article on Barry Goldwater. I'm reading it now and I don't see anything overly negative.

[PolWatch]

Were you talking of the DNC? I hope you know the topic of this thread.

I was commenting on anyone thinking that a site called conservopedia would be unbiased. It really helps to read the thread before making remarks about posts...honest.

[Safety]

I don't understand the issue of Wikipedia not presenting entities like the DNC in a "negative" light. It's an online encyclopedia, it's not supposed to portray anything in any light, negative or positive. It's only supposed to state facts.

Also, I don't know why Bob thinks a Democrat propagandist wrote the article on Barry Goldwater. I'm reading it now and I don't see anything overly negative.

Because it isn't laden with unicorn farts, that must mean it was written by a Democrat propagandist.

[del]

Where does Wikipedia present the DNC in a negative light?

what does it say about goldwater that you take issue with?

[Safety]

what does it say about goldwater that you take issue with?

That he lost the election to LBJ.

[del]

That he lost the election to LBJ.

those fucking lefties

grrrrr

[Bob]

I don't understand the issue of Wikipedia not presenting entities like the DNC in a "negative" light. It's an online encyclopedia, it's not supposed to portray anything in any light, negative or positive. It's only supposed to state facts.

Also, I don't know why @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) thinks a Democrat propagandist wrote the article on Barry Goldwater. I'm reading it now and I don't see anything overly negative.

This reflects our two age gaps.

It also reflects what I know to be FACT about Barry vs what Wikipedia says.

[Green Arrow]

This reflects our two age gaps.

It also reflects what I know to be FACT about Barry vs what Wikipedia says.

So how about you name specific things that are in the article that you think are wrongly negative about Goldwater.

[Bob]

what does it say about goldwater that you take issue with?

it presents him to be racist. It presents him to be a key vote in the 64 civil rights law despite my record written in 1976 by a respected (by the left mostly) Doris Kearns Goodwin who makes no mention of him playing a role at all in the 64 civil rights law.

In short Wikipedia demeans the man unfairly.

[Bob]

So how about you name specific things that are in the article that you think are wrongly negative about Goldwater.

See post 31. Also, if you already have an anti Goldwater bias, you may agree with the piece. If you are not left biased, you see the mistakes.

[del]

it presents him to be racist. It presents him to be a key vote in the 64 civil rights law despite my record written in 1976 by a respected (by the left mostly) Doris Kearns Goodwin who makes no mention of him playing a role at all in the 64 civil rights law.

In short Wikipedia demeans the man unfairly.

doris kearns goodwin is a historian in the same way that you are a lawyer.

there's nothing demeaning towards goldwater in the wiki piece

[Green Arrow]

See post 31. Also, if you already have an anti Goldwater bias, you may agree with the piece. If you are not left biased, you see the mistakes.

I'm a Barry Goldwater fan. I'd really appreciate it if you'd keep your opinions of me to yourself and stick to discussing the topic. Otherwise, I'll have to respond in kind, and you don't like that.

[Green Arrow]

it presents him to be racist. It presents him to be a key vote in the 64 civil rights law despite my record written in 1976 by a respected (by the left mostly) Doris Kearns Goodwin who makes no mention of him playing a role at all in the 64 civil rights law.

In short Wikipedia demeans the man unfairly.

Where does it say he was a key vote against the '64 CRA? I'm reading the article and I'm not seeing where it says he was a key vote.

[Common]

I don't understand the issue of Wikipedia not presenting entities like the DNC in a "negative" light. It's an online encyclopedia, it's not supposed to portray anything in any light, negative or positive. It's only supposed to state facts.

Also, I don't know why @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013) thinks a Democrat propagandist wrote the article on Barry Goldwater. I'm reading it now and I don't see anything overly negative.

Cmon youre smart enough to know that anything the right doesnt agree with is Left Wing Bias and vice versa. The truth doesnt matter to anyone

[del]

Where does it say he was a key vote against the '64 CRA? I'm reading the article and I'm not seeing where it says he was a key vote.

that's because it's not there.

[Green Arrow]

Really, if I wasn't a Goldwater fan already, I would be after reading his Wiki article.

[del]

Really, if I wasn't a Goldwater fan already, I would be after reading his Wiki article.

i thought it was fairly evenhanded and accurate

[Common]

Really, if I wasn't a Goldwater fan already, I would be after reading his Wiki article.

Ask blackrook he will give you his out of ass explanation, where everything else he says comes from

[PolWatch]

i thought it was fairly evenhanded and accurate

that's the problem...you, you, you....lib...you!

[del]

that's the problem...you, you, you....lib...you!

i always know i'm in the presence of real political acumen when i get labeled a lib.

it's just the way it is in lala land

[Common]

There are some right wingers on this forum who are starting to think they are masculine and want to insult everyone in every post. How brave from behind a screen lol. Im so impressed and intimidated by it.

Everything the right disagrees with is a LIB LIB LIB alalaalalal Obama Obama HIllary hillary thing.

Who gives a shit

[Bob]

I saw things said days back about Goldwater that presented him to be racist.

He carried the Dixie states and AZ and Democrats believe that made him racist. But I know he was not racist.

I went back to study the write up one more time and believe I am in error and that in general the write up treats him fairly.

Some of it, used improperly by the Democrats /socialists part, tend to be used by them to try to make him seem a racist. Which he never was.
del Green Arrow Safety

[PolWatch]

i always know i'm in the presence of real political acumen when i get labeled a lib.

it's just the way it is in lala land

I've have suspected you were a person of rare insight & judgment....:grin:

[Green Arrow]

I saw things said days back about Goldwater that presented him to be racist.

He carried the Dixie states and AZ and Democrats believe that made him racist. But I know he was not racist.

I went back to study the write up one more time and believe I am in error and that in general the write up treats him fairly.

Some of it, used improperly by the Democrats /socialists part, tend to be used by them to try to make him seem a racist. Which he never was.
@del (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=770) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226)

Thank you, Bob. I appreciate that.

[Bob]

Not at all, but they are a good read.

Really, David Duke and Helms?

[del]

I've have suspected you were a person of rare insight & judgment....:grin:

i'm not a bad guy for a commie

[Bob]

Thank you, Bob. I appreciate that.

Not a problem.

[Safety]

Really, David Duke and Helms?

If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it.

[Bob]

If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Well, that does not mean I have to study David Dukes writings.

[Safety]

Well, that does not mean I have to study David Dukes writings.

You don't, but knowledge is power. You would be surprised of the similarities in some mindsets.

[Green Arrow]

Well, that does not mean I have to study David Dukes writings.

It does if you want to know what David Duke believes.

[Bob]

It does if you want to know what David Duke believes.

I said I do not. I know exactly who he is.

[Bob]

I'm a Barry Goldwater fan. I'd really appreciate it if you'd keep your opinions of me to yourself and stick to discussing the topic. Otherwise, I'll have to respond in kind, and you don't like that.

I gave no opinion of you nor were you discussed. I did stick to the topic.

[Bob]

I was commenting on anyone thinking that a site called conservopedia would be unbiased. It really helps to read the thread before making remarks about posts...honest.

This is not about conservapedia. It is about left bias in Wikipedia It will make you far happier to stick to the topic. Trust me.

[PolWatch]

This is not about conservapedia. It is about left bias in Wikipedia It will make you far happier to stick to the topic. Trust me.

then tell your buddy not to use conservopedia as a source if you don't like it discussed in the thread. It will make you happier to keep things simple....KISS

[Bob]

then tell your buddy not to use conservopedia as a source if you don't like it discussed in the thread. It will make you happier to keep things simple....KISS

Maybe the topic was not to your liking. I have no forum buddies. The nearest to that i know of is redrose and we are not really close.