On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> So we got Conservapedia and some other conservative website accusing >> Wikipedia of having a liberal bias. What else is new, or what else are >> we to expect? >> >> -MuZemike > > Well, is there anything at all to it, or is it just bull? > > Fred
Responding on some technical points; 10 (relativity/PBR) - no substance 12 (Pioneer Anomaly) - numerically understanding and articulating the various factors and their estimated errors is critical to coherently understanding this phenomena. WP article is decent (in part because an involved scientist is a contributor) - CP seems not to get it. [disclaimer - COI, slightly involved] 14 (engineering - wind turbines) - no substance 16 (relativity contradictions) - no substance 39 (cold fusion) - may have a point here, but we know about this one... 40 (strategic defense initiative) - no substance [disclaimer - COI, but pro-SDI-ish COI] 45 (gun politics in the US) - no substance [disclaimer - pro-gun COI] 76 (wikipedia promoting suicide) - no substance 95 (operation eagle claw / iran hostage / carter election) - editorial choice to put political consequences in main article on hostage crisis, not in the article on the rescue itself; main article has coverage in lede for the issue. 97 (editor liberal bias) - probably true but omits age based statistical trend (younger / more liberal) - WP generally consistent with active internet user community. 107 (edward teller / oppenheimer security clearance testimony) - WP article is consistent with biographies and histories of the event, perhaps more Teller-leaning nuanced than the average historical coverage 119 (elementary proof) - doesn't appear to have been in WP until the mathematics project got going 2007ish, from reviewing its article and the main mathematical proof article. i don't consider this a valid criticism, however; WP's growth and evolution are strength (and future challenge) not flaw. 141 (communism mass killings) - main communism article section "Criticisms of communism" at the bottom of page has links to "Mass killings under communist regimes" prominently, so it's there now. 500 edits ago it was mentioned in the criticisms section but not linked directly off the main article. I'm going to stop there, with a general observation - I think they're right on one big picture thing: Wikipedia has an editorial bias - our "default neutrality" is that of a moderately internationalist, left-of-US-center somewhat more intellectual than average and more young internet user than average position, compared to the US political landscape as a whole. I.e., our userbase (editors) is skewed younger and more liberally, with the Internet early adopters general population statistics. I am concerned not so much with the specifics they are pointing out, but at a general trend that we may include more negatives about conservative positions and people than about liberal positions and people, which would be worth some statistical analysis. Ancedotal examples, especially those cited by someone so far off on the right end of the spectrum as young-earth creationists, aren't particularly useful for identifying the pattern. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
