Many of us rely on wikipedia as a quick and dirty source of information in a hurry. And while some attack it as unreliable, it has shown to be fairly reliable in comparison with the Encyclopedia Britannica.
But on controversial subjects like global warming, DON’T expect wikipedia to be objective. As Lawrence Solomon of the National Post reports, Wikipedia’s zealots may be removing information that is not politically correct, or of the minority opinion.
For the last 18 months I have been profiling scientists who disagree
with the UN panel’s position. My Deniers series, which now runs to some
40 columns, describes many of the world’s most prominent scientists.
They include authors or reviewers for the UN panel (before they quit in
disgust). They even include the scientist known as the father of
scientific climatology, who is recognized as being the most cited
climatologist in the world….I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have,
corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so. Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them after
editing them, I wondered? I made the changes again, and this time
confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they
were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared
shortly after they were made.
As it turns out, it wasn’t just another user deleting his updates, but a Wikipedia editor maintaining the Politically Correct status quo.
Tabletop, it turns out, has another name: Kim Dabelstein Petersen. She
(or he?) is an editor at Wikipedia. What does she edit? Reams and reams
of global warming pages. I started checking them. In every instance I
checked, she defended those warning of catastrophe and deprecated those
who believe the science is not settled. I investigated further. Others
had tried to correct her interpretations and had the same experience as
I — no sooner did they make their corrections than she pounced,
preventing Wikipedia readers from reading anyone’s views but her own.
When they protested plaintively, she wore them down and snuffed them
out.
Solomon warns that Wikipedia may not be objective on such controversial issues, but rather, may be acting as just another propoganda machine for the political left which may be the political leaning of official wikipedia editors.
By patrolling Wikipedia pages and ensuring that her spin reigns supreme
over all climate change pages, she has made of Wikipedia a propaganda
vehicle for global warming alarmists. But unlike government propaganda,
its source is not self-evident. We don’t suspend belief when we read
Wikipedia, as we do when we read literature from an organization with
an agenda, because Wikipedia benefits from the Internet’s cachet of
making information free and democratic. This Big Brother enforces its
views with a mouse.
In fact, Conservopedia has a hefty list of Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (over 100). Users of wikipedia, caveat emptor!
I kind of suspected that it wasn't totally unbiased on everything. It is made by people, after all.
But it is still a great info source.
Sad that they don't even allow an "opposing theories" section on something like that, though.
"Sad that they don't even allow an "opposing theories" section on something like that, though." –>
Lib fascism … shout em down or delete em out.
I kind of suspected that it wasn't totally unbiased on everything. It is made by people, after all.
As I said in the other thread:
So really in truly there is no such thing as "unbiased."
A person that is a Global Warming skeptic, a Intelligent Design Believer, or a Canibal Supporter will find all views that do not match his/her own beliefs or biases as being biased. And those views that come close to matching that person's views as being "unbiased"
This is what makes all this discussion about bias by scientists, unbiased views about Intelligent Design, and a whole host of things completely absurd.
Frankly, the closest one gets is enabling opposing views with equal time and equal access. That extends to interviews, reports, mass media communication, etc That does not happen anymore. Now we are in 3 ring circus free for all.
That is my un-biased (supported by my own bias) view.
LOL
A person that is a Global Warming skeptic, a Intelligent Design Believer, or a Canibal Supporter will find all views that do not match his/her own beliefs or biases as being biased.
If you read the original post, you will see that real, unethical bias is going on at wikipedia.
Frankly, the closest one gets is enabling opposing views with equal time and equal access.
Yeah, just don't parade out the evil fairness doctrine. If you really want unbiased news, you should watch FOX ;).
BTW, did you see the Hillary interview? O'Reilly stayed on the issues, avoided the 'gotchas' that the far right wanted to hear about (sniper fire), as well as the racism nonsense the Obama supporters wanted to hear. Fox rules.
If you read the original post, you will see that real, unethical bias is going on at wikipedia.
I did. However it points to the larger issue that there is a heck of a lot of unethical unbiased activity going on everywhere regardless of forum. People are inherently biased and seek the same information to continue to support their notions of reality.
Yeah, just don't parade out the evil fairness doctrine. If you really want unbiased news, you should watch FOX ;).
For a young boy that has no notion of what it was like under the fairness doctrine nor any real parents or family still alive when it was created you are one to talk. All joking aside. Fox unbiased? Yeah right. Fox is no less biased than the New Jew Times (sarcasm and racial slur unfurled in jest).
– S
People are inherently biased and seek the same information to continue to support their notions of reality.
Well, it sounds to me like you are using that as an excuse to fail to come to conclusions, or to blame others who do. The point of the article is that the egalitarian nature of a wiki is being putrefied by the official Wiki editors, which in a sense, violates the spirit of wikipedia in the first place.
Fox unbiased? Yeah right. Fox is no less biased than the New Jew Times
Actually, as I previously mentioned, two major and recent University studies have provided metrics showing that Fox is more balanced than the other networks when it comes to news (though on commentary, that might be a different issue.) And these aren't from some Fox-sponsored poll, but from Harvard and George Mason Univ.
Even their top commentary shows, like O'Reilly and Hannity have a good balance of guests. The cohost of Hannity is a liberal, even.
Do you dispute the numbers? Or would you rather just sit in the seat of the liberal scoffer saying 'yeah right,' in unbelief that the ultra-liberal media that libs have loved is really not even close to being objective in their coverage?
There is a reason why Fox and Fox News lead their respective time slots. They are good. And they are more fair than the others in many ways. The rest of the media, in general, is either liberal or ultra liberal.
Do you dispute the numbers? Or would you rather just sit in the seat of the liberal scoffer saying 'yeah right,' in unbelief that the ultra-liberal media that libs have loved is really not even close to being objective in their coverage?
Again, I point to biases that people already have towards one disposition or another. In other words, there is no such thing as an unbiased research study. I have been involved in enough of them to know that biases can and do creep into them.
There is a reason why Fox and Fox News lead their respective time slots. They are good. And they are more fair than the others in many ways. The rest of the media, in general, is either liberal or ultra liberal.
Actually, I would argue that they are more theatrical, staged, and target newstories that tug at the heartstrings than organizations that do any real hard news or deep thought provoking investigative reporting.
Organization that do the latter do the country and society a public service by being a watchdog. That is not inherently profitable. Organizations that do the former, such as Fox, use the pulling of heartstrings and theatrics to pull in ratings.
The rest of the media, in general, is either liberal or ultra liberal.
No, actually, what passes for Media today is not even a shadow of the types of real investigative reporting and serious investment in news gathering that was made in the past. Today we have happy meals for news. Some people like that. I know that you, for example, who has little patience or time to really dig or be informed seeks Happy Meals. We have talked about this in the past.
It is not a Liberal or Conservative thing…I could care less the politics of a news anchor…A networks orientation one way or the other does not earn a network any seargant's stripes in my book. Instead it an organization that does not play any circus stunts to get ratings under the guise of news.
In other words, there is no such thing as an unbiased research study.
You have never heard of double-blind studies? Do you use that excuse to reject all studies, or just the ones you disagree with? Can't you tell the difference between a well-run study and a biased one?
Do you ever make conclusions, or do you sit on the sidelines and say 'it is hopeless, everyone is biased, there is no truth except personal truth, woe is me'?
You have never heard of double-blind studies? Do you use that excuse to reject all studies, or just the ones you disagree with? Can't you tell the difference between a well-run study and a biased one?
Funny when the shoe is on the other foot no? I am playing the role of seeker here especially when it comes to research studies. Ha! How convenient
Do you ever make conclusions, or do you sit on the sidelines and say 'it is hopeless, everyone is biased, there is no truth except personal truth, woe is me'?
Oh my poor frustrated Seeker. I sense frustration on your part. So sorry.
Of course I make conclusions, but I also am adamantly clear that my own biases have colored those conclusions and recognize the fact that there is really no such thing as unbiased truth…particulary truth that is supported by views that share my own biases.
I seek out support of my positions/conclusions from the opposing side. No, I don't always find it, but I seek to find a balance.
That's the difference between you and me. I look at all sides and fight my own bias by seeking out all. You, based upon my observations, seek out evidence that supports your biased positions from those that share your bias.
You of all people who preaches the fallacy of Darwinism, Gay Rights, and the evils of Liberalism should be the first to spout off in full agreement that the world is biased.
Get over it or admit that there are no biases on the planet. I don't see that admission happening unless you stop pointing out biases elsewhere on those topics.
That's the difference between you and me. I look at all sides and fight my own bias by seeking out all. You, based upon my observations, seek out evidence that supports your biased positions from those that share your bias.
Perhaps you could choose the subject matter and give an example. I think your observations are biased ;) Seriously.
Regarding evolution, for example, I have a biochemistry degree with a focus on genetics, so I'm well steeped in evolutionary 'evidences'.
Regarding abortion and esc research, I take a position to the left of my peers, which i think shows that I think and research independently.
With regard to homosexuality, I have oft stated that the research is inconclusive, but that more and more research points to the idea that it is reversible, largely environmental, and associated with other mental illnesses. And while I may look for evidences to support my biblically motivated perspective, that does not mean that I have failed to consider the alternatives and their possible validity.
You forget that I left Christianity for Buddhism for many years precisely because I *do* question my beliefs.
I consider my opinions, in general, well researched, and I do reserve judgment on areas I am less knowledgeable in, like economics and history (except when it comes to history i have researched).
While your high opinion of your objectivity, at least in comparison to mine, is arguable, your low opinion of my objectivity, I think, is based on my presentation as very sure of myself.
I could improve my presentation to show that I have seriously and fairly considered the opposing view, and I could perhaps present in a less authoritative manner.
We all have biases, and no one can claim total objectivity or freedom from their biases, though some make no effort at all at self-examination.
But the thrust of this post is important. Most people assume that Wikipedia, though perhaps not complete, is less biased because its content is 'open source,' or whatever you call it. This post calls attention to the fact that wikipedia has editors that scour for "unacceptable" content, not based on facts, but based on bias. That's news.