Top 13 Examples of Liberal Bias at Wikipedia
Did you know that there is liberal bias at Wikipedia? The editors at Conservapedia most certainly do, and to get the word out they have helpfully compiled a list of over 160 examples. Here are thirteen of my favorites with the occasional comment added for amusement and/or clarification.
EXAMPLE: Wikipedia uses trivia to push its liberal icons on readers. In its first 200 words about conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Wikipedia includes the meaningless trivia that he was born on the same day as (liberal) Jimmy Carter. Yet nowhere in Carter’s entry does it say he was born on the same day as Rehnquist .
I think Stinquers will agree with me that it is difficult to think of a more nefarious example of leftist bias than ruining Rhenquist’s special day by needlessly brining Carter into the conversation (while sparing Carter a similar indignity, no less!!!).
EXAMPLE: When someone goes to Wikipedia’s “Constitutional Convention” page, users are taken to a general page about Constitutional conventions, instead of being taken right to the United States Constitutional Convention page.
And we all know that one of the easiest ways to spot a liberal is to look for the guy in the room who doesn’t acknowledge that the USA is the center of the universe.
EXAMPLE: Wikipedia’s article on engineering features a photo of … an offshore wind turbine, which is an inefficient liberal boondoggle and certainly not a representative example of engineering. None even exist off the shores of the United States because they are not competitive.
Oddly enough, the Conservapedia page on Engineering features a picture of a Wankel engine, a motor so fuel-inefficient that no American manufacturer produces one in their cars and which is currently used in only one production automobile sold in the US, the Mazda RX8.
EXAMPLE: In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue, journalist Joseph Farah supports his observation that Wikipedia “is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known.”
And what better example of bias in Wikipedia than citing something that somebody once said about Wikipedia.
EXAMPLE: Augusto Pinochet, who overthrew communism in Chile and then restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power himself, is called a “dictator” by Wikipedia,but Fidel Castro, the communist dictator of Cuba for four decades, is instead called a “leader” or even a “president”.
Only a dishonorable organ of left-wing propaganda would fail to note that Agusto Pinochet restored Democracy to Chile by staging a military coup against a democratically elected president, then installing a 17 year military dictatorship in its place.
EXAMPLE: The Wikipedia entry on baraminology (a form of taxonomy) describes it as “pseudoscience” and “unrelated to science” simply because it is based on the Holy Bible.
Wikipedia has the audacity to refer to a pseudoscience as pseudoscience.
EXAMPLE: Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of obscure and offensive entries, such as unsuccessful punk rock groups and silly television shows. But within hours liberals on Wikipedia completely deleted an informative and well-referenced entry about Hollywood Values, in order to censor examples of how the liberal ideology harms people.
EXAMPLE: Wikipedia has once again deleted all content on the North American Union. The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked
The liberal editors at Wikipedia have this awful habit of not publishing articles propounding crass propaganda or unsubstantiated far-Right conspiracy theories.
EXAMPLE: Wikipedia has two million entries, but not one for liberal. Users who go to that term are redirected to the Wikipedia entry on liberalism that conceals the liberal support of gun control and taxpayer funding of abortion, and liberal censorship of prayer in public school.
And we all know that articles about nouns are liberally biased, whereas articles about adjectives are more appropriately conservative. (BTW: the Wikipedia entry on liberalism also fails to mention that liberals hate Freedom, love Satan and are lukewarm on cauliflower).
EXAMPLE: Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, features an entry on “deceit (album)” that gushes with a description of it as “austere, brilliant and indescribable” music that is “post-punk”. The word “deceit” has no entry on Wikipedia…
Wikipedia avoids running an article on “deceit” due to the self-referential characteristic it would no doubt take.
EXAMPLE: Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. For a long time Wikipedia had an entry for “duh”…
Silly administrator names and general whimsy are Satanic (Liberal) manifestations, no doubt. If I might quote the great Conservative theologian Jorge De Burgos: “Laughter is a devilish wind which deforms the lineaments of the face and makes men look like monkeys”
EXAMPLE: Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacked any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof until this omission was pointed out here. Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.
Not entirely clear how this shows liberal bias, exactly, but for more than you ever wanted to know on Conservapedia’s peculiar take on mathematics, look here.
EXAMPLE: Wikipedia’s errors spill undetected into newspapers. A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League.
Much as the Soviet Union invaded numerous peaceful nations after World War II and forced them to join the Warsaw Pact, Liberals never cease trying to underhandedly expand the ranks of their elitist “Ivy League Pact.”