An: charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com, English Wikipedia
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Betreff: Re: [WikiEN-l] Alleged Liberal Bias
Even if Conservapedia are raving lunatics (and I agree with David on
that),
paying careful attention to our critics is a useful exercise. If you're
really interested Fred
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic, it
took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51 (Wikipedia's
entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:42, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:01, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic,
it took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If anything, the discussion of his
arguments on infanticide may be too prominent.
Are you speaking of the article on the German Wikipedia?
Fred
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If anything,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:09, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 13:23, Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:09, Peter Jacobi peter_jac...@gmx.net wrote:
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Guettarda guetta...@gmail.com wrote:
Reality has a liberal bias doesn't mean that liberals are right. Rather,
it means that any attempt to represent reality will, in the eyes of American
conservatives, amount to displaying a liberal bias.
That should only be
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Guettarda guetta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 13/10/2010, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Guettarda guetta...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that Wikipedia is big enough that we have room for all points
of view by drilling down far enough. We are not going to state in our
main article that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy organised by the
US
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Guettarda guetta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
That's not neutral. That's not representing reality. That's outright
conservatives are so batshit we don't care about them bias.
And the
-Brock
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Guettarda guetta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 13/10/2010, George Herbert
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 09:36, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
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,
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that we fail to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious response, this is disingenuous. People don't
On 13/10/2010, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that we fail to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious response, this is disingenuous. People
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/10/2010, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On 14/10/2010 20:36, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Charles Matthews wrote:
#167 is the allegation that we fail to understand what the Tea Party
guys are all about. AFAIK we don't claim to understand anything much,
just to compile articles from sources.
I think that as a serious
I think there have been some discussions at WP:RSN about whether it is
a sufficiently reliable source for negative BLP. My own opinion would
be that it is not, and neither is the Guardian.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
note Fox News is excluded from
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:26 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 13/10/2010, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
I am concerned not so much with the specifics they are pointing out,
but
Is there anything on this list:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about?
I was led there by a link from this post:
http://www.redstate.com/docquintana/2010/10/11/fighting-liberal-bias-on-wikipedia/
Which
On 13 October 2010 14:45, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Is there anything on this list:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about?
Every word. Then, when we've gone through that list, we can fix our
Seriously, Fred...
He cites WIKIPEDIA:NOT#DEMOCRACY and the use of American football
instead of just football as examples of liberal bias. Not much
substance to this bitter complaint in my humble opinion.
Nathan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On 13 October 2010 14:45, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Is there anything on this list:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about?
Every word. Then, when we've gone through that list, we can fix our
On 13/10/2010 14:45, Fred Bauder wrote:
Is there anything on this list:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about?
I don't know. One of them (#67) may be about you, but it's kind of hard
to tell whether
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
On 10/13/2010 8:45 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Is there anything on this list:
I had no idea that theories about gravity and relativity were the
result of a liberal conspiracy, but quite a few of those Examples of
liberal bias discuss Wikipedia's failure to promote criticism of both
principles.
Nathan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
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
___
WikiEN-l
Conservapedia isn't even a reliable guide to what most U.S. conservatives
think of Wikipedia; despite the broad name, the site is actually run by Young
Earth creationists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism,
which is why it's so outlandish.
So, put me down for bull. Pardon the
On 13/10/2010 14:45, Fred Bauder wrote:
Is there anything on this list:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about?
I don't know. One of them (#67) may be about you, but it's kind of hard
to tell
On 13/10/2010 16:02, Fred Bauder 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?
Of course they can point
On 13 October 2010 15:19, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 13 October 2010 14:45, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Is there anything on this list:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about?
Even if Conservapedia are raving lunatics (and I agree with David on that),
paying careful attention to our critics is a useful exercise. If you're
really interested Fred, make a list of smart people and try to pry specific,
constructive pieces of criticism out of them.
We all know we're not yet
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
