Posted on 12/29/2005 11:55:25 PM PST by Notwithstanding
You know, I'm going to reply in wiki talk, because I don't really see any other point to continuing this, as we have begun to repeat ourselves.
{{sofixit}}
Denile isn't just a river in Africa.
If the Encyclopedia Britannica had a built-in process that allowed every random yobo, wild-eyed partisan, ill-informed troublemaker and liberal hachet-man to distort historical and political information printed in its pages before a new edition went to press, how trustworthy do you think most people would consider its publishers?
Not very. Although I'm confused why we're seemingly afraid only of liberal hatchet-men and not conservative axe-women. Joking, I swear. Anyway, I am not going to say that wikipedia is fit for print. Helllllll no. I don't think the problem is liberal bias though, I think its just a lot of work that still needs to be done. Thus my attempt to come here and (poorly, I know) get good new uesrs.
Perhaps you missed the point: FReepers should begin editing at wikipedia because most editors seem to be of the liberal PC variety and therefore the flavor of controversdial articles is extremely left-wing.
Pretty simple concept - and in accord with the last of your remarks.
You seem desperately to want to believe that wikipedia can be what it claims to be - neutral.
In spite of your attempts to explain away the obvious liberal bias that appears in almost every article that touches on controversy, the bias remains.
That ought to bother anyone who truly seeks neutrality. I hope it bothers you and that you will bend over backwards to root out the problem wherever you see it on wikipedia.
Status quo: wikipedia has an obvious leftward bent
Its up to people like you (who appear to be respected editors at wikipedia and who also appear to truly want wikipedia to be neutral) to ensure editors that try to provide balance are given wide berth and support as they wade into the wikipedia water to improve its content.
Then I hope that you will speak out loudly and clearly.
Is there any room in your thinking for genuine disagreement?
I hope the bias, where it exists, will bother you enough when you see it that you will to do something about it.
I also hope that the perception that there is such a bias at wikipedia will also bother you enough to do soemthing about it.
My solution was to invite people to edit in order to add that balance. I did not invite people to vandalize or spam. I even instructed people to be polite.
Your position as a popular editor (I have read your user and talk pages) allows you to shame those with obvious leftwing bias to knock it off and to give new arrivals a chance to make positive contributions without getting shouted down or shut down.
Bump.
Not sure if I qualify as popular, and I am pleased that you invited people to be polite and civil. At any rate, bias does concern me, although I disagree its quite as bad as you say it is. At anyrate, I welcome multiple points of view. The charge of a liberal conspiracy/heirarchy is one I will flatly deny, but a overal shift to the left on numerous hotspots is one I will not until I investigate myself further. At anyrate, thank you for remebering to exhort constructive attitudes, and for any good users you send our way!
My uncle, who is doing his ThD degree, once taught me of this when I was a child "It is impossible to have anything that is completely free of bias. We may say that something contains biases, but in fact it may be right and we are clouding our judgments with our own opposing bias and it could well be a wrong bias. The only right way to learn materials correctly is to delve into the original sources, evaluate, and verify to see if the bias is ever justified. Encyclopedias are good references, but never trust them completely without verifications and comparing them with other materials no matter how neutral they claim."
He said this in 1988 after I showed him completely different descriptions about China's Kuomintang from a children's encyclopedia published from Taiwan's Taiwan Privincial Ministry of Education and a mainland Chinese (Communist) edited edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. Even in 2005 this word of advice still rings true.
If found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Earle
intresting, as I think it shows that political articles systemically slant against the subject. Thoughts?
I've continually used Wikipedia and found it to be very fair and balanced. On issues in which I am very knowledgable the facts are correct. I'd hate liberal activists turning wikipedia into a biased site just as much as conservatives doing so.
I've continually used Wikipedia and found it to be very fair and balanced. On issues in which I am very knowledgable the facts are correct. I'd hate liberal activists turning wikipedia into a biased site just as much as conservatives doing so.
They're at it again, just look at what they've done to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
Bump
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.