On 23 August 2011 12:11, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is an interesting article by David Swindle of Front Page, about
Wikipedia's problems with biographies of living persons. Swindle sees it in
terms of a persistent left wing bias.
...
On 23/08/2011 19:54, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Charles Matthews wrote:
But bias of the kind he works with is a really unhelpful concept for
us, in practice: especially when trivialised by being metricated.
What other way is there to claim bias than being metricated? Is he
It's always sad to see this cast as a left/right thing - or Wikipedia has a
liberal bias. We equally have huge problems with right wing agenda's on
some articles. And most of the BLP issues aren't related to politics, but to
all manner of sides (sexuality,political,ethnic,historical and those are
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:11:41 +0100, wikien-l-Tony Sidaway wrote:
Here is an interesting article by David Swindle of Front Page, about
Wikipedia's problems with biographies of living persons. Swindle sees it in
terms of a persistent left wing bias.
And (at least when I went there) it plays
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 13:58, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm nice that he's not entirely relying on the Siegenthaler incident and has
quoted something beyond 2007. But his reliance on a 2009 Daily Mail story
about 20,000 editors vetting changes via flagged revisions
For those who professionally seek attention,
You know; rather than political bias, or political editing, this is probably
the root cause of problems in the specific articles he highlights.
Not that I'd call it their own damn fault, but they are in those
situations deliberately.
Tom
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011, Charles Matthews wrote:
But bias of the kind he works with is a really unhelpful concept for
us, in practice: especially when trivialised by being metricated.
What other way is there to claim bias than being metricated? Is he just
supposed to give his subjective opinion,
