Skip to comments.New Wikipedia article - "Wikipedia liberal bias"
Posted on 11/21/2005 12:16:25 PM PST by zilla1126
click here to read article
Looks like it has been deleted...LOL
Looks like an attempt or two was made already - and they deleted it!
Gone as of now.
It says it's already gone.
Looks like it has already been deleted. Good try though.
This page has been deleted. The reason for deletion is shown in the summary below, along with details of the users who had edited this page before deletion. The actual text of these deleted revisions is only available to administrators.
Why don't you try it again, making it about liberal bias in general, citing Wikipedia as a prime example.
Wikipedia has whatever slant its contributors give it. Since liberal $$> conservative $$ about 100:1, do the math. Wikipedia has been fairly good about maintaining respectability, being no more liberal than say Brittanica or Encarta. I'm inclined to not want to upset the apple cart.
We need to make up our own. Comparing ours to the liberal bias trash. Advising all we'll NOT BE REWRITING HISTORY, as the loon web site does.
Would you please post a copy of that deleted article on this thread? Thank you.
I have posted a message to the editor who immediately (within a minute) deleted the article:
I would like to know why the aticle I created "Wikipedia Liberal Bias" was summarily deleted moments after it was created. There are a LOT of people that feel that a article on that issue would be helpful; why was it treated the same as blatant attack pages and gay smears? Is this a taboo subject?
A technique that repressive regimes use to suppress discussion on a particular topic is to make sure discussion on said topic stays fragmented and disorganized. By saying that this topic is covered elsewhere you can prevent discussion and the opportunity for people to compare experiences.
This may not be your goal; but how would your actions have differed it it was?
I don't quite understand the political POV-pushers, since it so unnecessarily stressful living that way; but then there really are people on earth who think they Know the Truth. It is common to mistake the death of curiosity and openness for knowledge, but perhaps this is just one way nature is merciful. Not only are things in the world not in black and white, but things in "black-and-white" are not in black and white. Failure to discern shades of gray may be a disability, an incapacity, or a form of cowardice: since it takes a whole lot more courage to see and accept the world with all its messy contradictions, than to view it all as Right, Wrong, Saved, Damned, My Way or the Highway.And
I just deleted it again. No context, attack, inappropriate namespace for such a discussion: there are numerous reasons for deleting it; and the reason that trumps them all is that it was already deleted on AFD. And stop equating us to a "repressive regime", you're playing with a logical fallacy here. Please do NOT recreate your POV attack article again. And furthermore, I'd delete it whether it were "Wikipedia conservative bias" or "Wikipedia has no bias". All are inappropriate. Thanks. Antandrus (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Wotta maroon. See my tagline
Gosh, what pompous spew. Such lofty thinkers, these libs. You gotta love all those colons and semicolons. They give his email kind of an 18th century flavor. And the lecturette about seeing things in shades of gray is just precious. It's also certain proof that he's a lib. If he's typical of the folks on staff there, then it's no surprise that the Wikipedia would tilt left.
Rather than tilting at windmills by posting emotional rants that you know are going to be deleted, why don't you try this:
Anyone may try to edit an article. Why don't your edit articles you believe to be biased? Now when you do so, please keep in mind that your edits should be well written and coherent, devoid of hyperbole, accurate, and substantiated with valid, vetted references.
Why did you address your comment to me? The Wikipedia is a resource just like Google. I trust neither. The progressive activists will/have corrupt it just like all of 'the commons'.
Boortz, high priest of the church of the painful truth, says it best, 'believe nothing unless personally verified or congruent with your personal understanding'.
Compare the fraction of articles on 'soft' subjects to that of 'hard' (as in the hard sciences) subjects. The Wikipedia, the Wikis in general, are not immune to the Science Wars or their influences.
Read the genre epitomized by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt (an avowed liberal) in their Flight From Science and Reason. Or Alan Sokal's hoax Trangressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (skewering the purveyors of 'pompous spew').
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.