bnkrazy
Member
I'm glad it's up now. I only posted it to illustrate that there are rogue Wiki Admins that promote their agenda. I don't think Wiki as a whole has any bias. Individual Admins on the other hand...
Ever noticed anti-gun bias on Wikipedia?
- Thread starter iowajones
- Start date
- Status
I'm glad it's up now. I only posted it to illustrate that there are rogue Wiki Admins that promote their agenda. I don't think Wiki as a whole has any bias. Individual Admins on the other hand...
La Pistoletta
Member
Wikipedia is biased in favour of relativism; it dismisses objectivity (ie. truth) and endorses neutrality - ie. non-discriminatory between right and wrong, true and false.
One of the many flaws of the wikipedia project.
Wikipedia is useful but not quite to the extent that many who devote significant portions of their time to the project would like you and I to believe.
As evidence of anti-gun bias I'd present the arthur kellermann entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann Kellermann's study is of course one of the oldest and most thoroughly debunked anti-gun studies around. The criticism section of his entry is empty and the paragraph about his numbers is fairly weasely. Relevant criticism appears to have been pruned from the article. I suspect there are a number of similar firearm articles on wikipedia that are biased, intentionally or otherwise.
Another example is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_shock article. I believe its largely authored by Michael Courtney. To me that sort of seems like the pope writing the article on christianity. If no one cares enough to wiki-bicker, a great deal of bias could remain in such an article. I can't speak for everyone but I personally feel like editing wiki pages is a waste of my time because of how quickly and easily quality work is often wasted by a random person's opinion.
Gordon Fink
Member
yhtomit said:
Uh … Justin Moon made it up to give his company a German-sounding name. I found that in an interview that was reprinted on the Kahr site.
~G. Fink
HK G3
Member
Wow apparently I opened up a hornet's nest.
To clarify my comment, I'm saying that both the Holocaust and global warming are real. There is a great deal of substantial evidence for both.
The "evidence" against both are, for the most part, just wingnuts with an agenda, while the very few credible scientists disputing it tend to have a very large conflict of interest relative to their findings and income. There really is no debate amongst scientists as to Global Warming's veracity, much like there is no debate about the Holocaust's veracity amongst historians.
That we all speak of using logic and reason, as they are inherently superior to "feelings", to convince the antis of our position is interesting, seeing as so many are willing to ignore logic and reason on this issue.
And I think global warming is very much gun related. A lot of us hunt, and global warming could easily affect the game population in our areas. But I digress.
Blech, sorry to steer this off track again, I just wanted to clarify my comment so as not to be thought of as some idiot Holocaust denier.
At any rate, Wikipedia usually tends to be biased when you start to look at it with your own bias. I often use it casually when researching medical topics, and when doing more in-depth research to supplement what I've learned, often find they took a side in an area that is up for debate. For example, Crohn's disease isn't well understood, and some recent research indicates that it could be caused by bacteria, but Wiki, at the time that I was using it, stated that it was immune-mediated, as if there was no debate.
As someone said earlier, it takes the bias of the writers, but there are so many who can edit the articles that ultimately the bias gets flattened out. And the website does take bias seriously - I constantly see material on wiki that is flagged for potential bias, and undergoing investigation.
To clarify my comment, I'm saying that both the Holocaust and global warming are real. There is a great deal of substantial evidence for both.
The "evidence" against both are, for the most part, just wingnuts with an agenda, while the very few credible scientists disputing it tend to have a very large conflict of interest relative to their findings and income. There really is no debate amongst scientists as to Global Warming's veracity, much like there is no debate about the Holocaust's veracity amongst historians.
That we all speak of using logic and reason, as they are inherently superior to "feelings", to convince the antis of our position is interesting, seeing as so many are willing to ignore logic and reason on this issue.
And I think global warming is very much gun related. A lot of us hunt, and global warming could easily affect the game population in our areas. But I digress.
Blech, sorry to steer this off track again, I just wanted to clarify my comment so as not to be thought of as some idiot Holocaust denier.
At any rate, Wikipedia usually tends to be biased when you start to look at it with your own bias. I often use it casually when researching medical topics, and when doing more in-depth research to supplement what I've learned, often find they took a side in an area that is up for debate. For example, Crohn's disease isn't well understood, and some recent research indicates that it could be caused by bacteria, but Wiki, at the time that I was using it, stated that it was immune-mediated, as if there was no debate.
As someone said earlier, it takes the bias of the writers, but there are so many who can edit the articles that ultimately the bias gets flattened out. And the website does take bias seriously - I constantly see material on wiki that is flagged for potential bias, and undergoing investigation.
Gunnerpalace
Member
When I look at Wikipedia it has a Pro-gun bias to me (not that that is bad 
)
It is also worth noting the founder of Wikipedia Jim Wales is a Libertarian.
)It is also worth noting the founder of Wikipedia Jim Wales is a Libertarian.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Leftists have been promoting the same controlling, big government, post-American, anti-growth policies for 50 years. All of a sudden "global warming" gets discovered in the mid 2000's and low and behold, the same solutions to global warming are the backward destructive policies that they have been preaching for decades. Sorry, I don't buy it.
Face it, they were searching for a scam they could pull to trick people into implementing the nonsense they have been trying at for years. They found such a scam in global warming.
Face it, they were searching for a scam they could pull to trick people into implementing the nonsense they have been trying at for years. They found such a scam in global warming.
inherentical
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 753
Except that the new buzzword for "global warming" is "global climate change", and "The Holocaust" will always be "The Holocaust."
Soybomb, excellent post. Consensus does not equal truth.
LaEscopeta
Member
There are countless articles in Wikipedia that clearly states true fact, without trying to present 2 sides. Like how rainbows are formed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow
And that Stockholm is the capital of Sweden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm
There are other articles that do present both sides (or many sides) of an issue, like what were the causes of the American Civil War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
Or even if it should be called the Civil War or the War of Northern Aggression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_of_Northern_Aggression&redirect=no
I would not be surprised if the article on brussels sprouts presented two sides to the question of do they taste good.
When the issue is clearly a matter where facts show what the truth is Wikipedia frequently states the facts and the truth. When the currently available facts are inconclusive Wikipedia many times gives the alternative possibilities. And when the issue is a matter that cannot be settled by facts, they give the different opinions.
Of course the people who knock on my door to tell be how the facts positively prove their God & religion are the one and only will not agree on what is a matter of fact and which are matters of opinions, personal choice, etc.
Last edited:
jason10mm
Member
I must be one of the few folk left who NEVER rely on wiki for anyhting important. To me it is a useful trivia source, but to rely on it for unbiased fact....wow.
I use it frequently to catch up on tv series, games, and book plots. I find it somewhat ok for biographies and country tidbits.
Can kids cite wikipedia for reports?
As for guns, I would be shocked if a bias didn't creep in there from one side or another. Wiki by definition is written by non-professionals (by that I mean folks who are not trained to eliminate bias in their writing, not that they are not a professional in the area they are writing about).
But then again, I am a Britannica guy, always have been.
I use it frequently to catch up on tv series, games, and book plots. I find it somewhat ok for biographies and country tidbits.
Can kids cite wikipedia for reports?
As for guns, I would be shocked if a bias didn't creep in there from one side or another. Wiki by definition is written by non-professionals (by that I mean folks who are not trained to eliminate bias in their writing, not that they are not a professional in the area they are writing about).
But then again, I am a Britannica guy, always have been.
Bartkowski
Member
Wait, I thought we were going into another ice age 40 years ago?????
And what about the 30,000 scientists that signed the oregon petition? And why does the temperature rise before co2 levels do?
And what about the 30,000 scientists that signed the oregon petition? And why does the temperature rise before co2 levels do?
HK,
I respect your opinion about global warming but I think you need to dig deeper. Don't you know that they're trying to established a carbon tax? And why would you believe politicians anyway, they always lie. They said before that ice age will happen again or you remember that thing about y2k? But none of this came true, it's just a bunch of lies. It's just a tool of taking away people's liberty, that excuse for the common good. since you brought up global warming I think I have to post this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
I respect your opinion about global warming but I think you need to dig deeper. Don't you know that they're trying to established a carbon tax? And why would you believe politicians anyway, they always lie. They said before that ice age will happen again or you remember that thing about y2k? But none of this came true, it's just a bunch of lies. It's just a tool of taking away people's liberty, that excuse for the common good. since you brought up global warming I think I have to post this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
Let's suppose that I find a factual error and/or bias in a firearms related article. As a free man and independent thinker, what do I do?
Mike
- Use the various wiki mechanisms to dispute the article?
- Run to a gun boad - where I am sure that everyone will agree with me - and whine like an anti who just saw an AR-15?
Mike
arthurcw
Member
I’m sorry but anyone who uses Wikipeadia as a real source for knowledge is beyond help. Any “source” where what is true is “what everyone says it is” is of very little use. I lament the fact that many in our (Re)Education System are allowing Wiki as a source in papers.
Use it at your own risk.
That said, the firearms articles seem to have very little “sky-is-falling-OMG-guns-kill-babies-and-deflower-young-virginal-minds” hysteria.
Off Topic – Anyone who believes that WE can destroy the Earth has a very over inflated view of humanity. We can mess up locals… and have. But funny how even after the largest disasters, life still finds a way to take back the land and sea.
IF, and that’s a very sketchy “if”, there is GW, we didn’t cause it and it will eventually give way to a Global Cooling. And if you want to worry about something, worry about that. Europe’s Little Ice Age didn’t do much for life in general.
Use it at your own risk.
That said, the firearms articles seem to have very little “sky-is-falling-OMG-guns-kill-babies-and-deflower-young-virginal-minds” hysteria.
Off Topic – Anyone who believes that WE can destroy the Earth has a very over inflated view of humanity. We can mess up locals… and have. But funny how even after the largest disasters, life still finds a way to take back the land and sea.
IF, and that’s a very sketchy “if”, there is GW, we didn’t cause it and it will eventually give way to a Global Cooling. And if you want to worry about something, worry about that. Europe’s Little Ice Age didn’t do much for life in general.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
Ok, look, this is a gun forum. Not a place to discuss global warming.
I'd rather not close this thread, as it has some useful posts.
Thanks.
I'd rather not close this thread, as it has some useful posts.
Thanks.
JohnBT
Member
I'm surprised anyone ever refers to Wikipedia for anything. There are much better sources for facts.
John
John
CNYCacher
Member
HK G3 said:
Thanks for destroying what could have been a great thread.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
In general, I've found Wikipedia to be a good place to find sources on a given topic. Any well-written Wikipedia article will have a rather large list of footnotes that give the sources for the information contained in the article. From there, it's pretty easy to use it as a jumping-off point to dig up information that, in some cases, I wouldn't have found in the first place.
For example, the Criticism of Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia has 156 sourced footnotes.
In general, if a Wikipedia article isn't properly sourced, or contains information that may be incorrect, it's flagged with a warning at the top letting you know this.
Of course, like any other website (THR included), you have to go into it with your BS detector turned on, and be willing to engage your critical thinking skills. But at least they're up front about it.
For example, the Criticism of Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia has 156 sourced footnotes.
In general, if a Wikipedia article isn't properly sourced, or contains information that may be incorrect, it's flagged with a warning at the top letting you know this.
Of course, like any other website (THR included), you have to go into it with your BS detector turned on, and be willing to engage your critical thinking skills. But at least they're up front about it.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
You know, it wouldn't be an issue if people would just stick to the topic at hand.
Criminitly.
Gator
Member
Thernlund
Member
Justin said:
That's right. Wikipedia is a fine source so long as you use it as a starting point, not an ending point.
-T.
Old Grump
Member
Well I'm no expert but I slept in a Motel 6 once.
For social issues like gun control or the debates on global warning or holocaust I do not use Wiki. I have a bad habit of being the kind of guy before computers who if he had a question on Abnormal Psychology or any other subject would go to the library and check out 9 books on the subject. I use Yahoo and Google the same way. I like Wiki for a quick reference especially on technical topics but use it as a spring board to other authorities. I have not found any anti-sentiment on guns in Wiki but I wasn't looking for any I am looking for technical info and that usually leads me elsewhere.
Off topic for just a second I seen high levels of snow when I was a munchkin, (middle 40-'s through the 60's) and I seen trees budding in January in the same time period, this is Wisconsin. I also was warned that New York was going to be covered by a 20' thick glacier by 2020. I heard the neo Nazi's and I knew people who had been in the camps, worked with them and ate lunch with them and saw their tattoo's every day.
I don't care what Wiki says about social issues it is a quick reference and it is good for that. I never considered it an authority till I read a book written by an authority that agreed with it. When it comes to looking up something on a particular model or strange caliber it is handy but not the final answer. I will not throw out the baby with the bath water because it is biased on a topic or even a few topics. To me it is needing a shovel to dig a hole with but a teaspoon will get me a sample. Wiki = teaspoon
For social issues like gun control or the debates on global warning or holocaust I do not use Wiki. I have a bad habit of being the kind of guy before computers who if he had a question on Abnormal Psychology or any other subject would go to the library and check out 9 books on the subject. I use Yahoo and Google the same way. I like Wiki for a quick reference especially on technical topics but use it as a spring board to other authorities. I have not found any anti-sentiment on guns in Wiki but I wasn't looking for any I am looking for technical info and that usually leads me elsewhere.
Off topic for just a second I seen high levels of snow when I was a munchkin, (middle 40-'s through the 60's) and I seen trees budding in January in the same time period, this is Wisconsin. I also was warned that New York was going to be covered by a 20' thick glacier by 2020. I heard the neo Nazi's and I knew people who had been in the camps, worked with them and ate lunch with them and saw their tattoo's every day.
I don't care what Wiki says about social issues it is a quick reference and it is good for that. I never considered it an authority till I read a book written by an authority that agreed with it. When it comes to looking up something on a particular model or strange caliber it is handy but not the final answer. I will not throw out the baby with the bath water because it is biased on a topic or even a few topics. To me it is needing a shovel to dig a hole with but a teaspoon will get me a sample. Wiki = teaspoon
- Status