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.”

7 comments:

9:30 am • Wednesday • August 11, 2010

Of course Conservapedia lurves Pinochet – after all, the US went to sooooo much trouble to assassinate his legitimately elected predecessor (for the unforgivable sin of thinking that natural resources might belong to the country and not megacorps).

As to most of these examples, clearly the editors at Cuntservapedia need to read this. A quick review of the policies regarding articles without independent sourcing might also be valuable, as I seriously doubt any serious media outside of Tinfoil Hat Monthly has offered the NAU etc any real coverage.

10:21 am • Wednesday • August 11, 2010

Having read the Gulag Archipelago and the many absurdities done in the name of the purity of Communism, this makes me laugh (assuming I don’t cough my lungs out–fucking summer cold.)

These folks would make good New Soviet People with their inane/insane need to make facts Contarded.

What’s sad is that these guys are also the type of kid in school who demanded that everything be done in a certain way and ONLY in a certain way… their way. It didn’t matter if the teacher said 4+4 =8, they insisted it was 9 till other kids (usually those who got it) would laugh at them. Of course, they would store up that shame and laughter to generate resentment over it. Hoping for the day would come that 4+4 = 9. Takes a deep kind of narcissism to believe that THEY and ONLY THEY are special.

Tools.

10:32 am • Wednesday • August 11, 2010

@ManchuCandidate:

LOL, more accurate than you realize, Manchu. This is from the article (linked above) that describes Conservapedia’s bizarre math articles:

Conservapedia’s article of “conservative parables” (as of this revision) tells the story of a teenager who received $40 from his father but then lost it out of his car. The kid obsesses with the lost cash for a while. Years later, he comes to his senses and realized that if he had just worked a few extra hours, at $8 per hour, he could have replaced that $40.

The question is: If you make $8 per hour, how long does it take you to earn $40? The first answer to this question was “about 6 hours”. The second answer was 5 hours, but it was later reverted to 6 hours with the explanation, “removed mistake inserted by Ferno… ever hear of taxes, folks?” Then, another user corrected it to 5.6 hours citing current tax rates. This was undone. So, by fiat, it takes six hours of working at $8 per hour to replace $40.

1:57 pm • Wednesday • August 11, 2010

TJ/ To Gear’s Alternative Traffic Code

Top Gear: Alternative Highway Code ($12) is 115 pages of careful instruction and full-color illustrations to help you navigate any and all vehicle-related situations, from the seemingly basic (three wheels on a car is quite simply “not enough wheels”) to the more controversial (do not let your dog drive, even if he claims to have only had one drink and feels “fine”). It will also advise that if you reverse fast enough, you can travel back in time, although that last bit is most likely false as everyone knows you must travel forward at 88 mph. It’s cheeky, brilliant, and a must-have for Top Gear enthusiasts.

http://gearpatrol.com/blog/2010/08/11/ministry-of-top-gear-presents-the-alternative-highway-code/

@Serolf Divad: I heard that memo this morning on sports talk radio on Scotty Pippen being broke and on athlete spending in general. Dude of ESPN was saying that athletes don’t realize that a $100,000 car actually costs $160,000 in real earnings because of taxes. I’ll let you all do the maths and the deconstruction.

6:22 pm • Wednesday • August 11, 2010

@redmanlaw:
Pippen broke?

Ugh. Sports guys are a lot like lottery winners. As soon as they get the big payday they assume they’re a bajillionaire and spend it all forgetting that eventually the days of plenty are limited.

ESPN dude was partially right. Also that a $100K car comes with 100K car problems like insurance (if you think your insurance is bad, try insuring a luxury car), maintenance as 100K car parts cost more than 30K car parts and that gas for a 100K car is usually much higher than a 30k car (hey, performance isn’t free gas wise.)

This all fine when you make $10 mil year, but hurts way more when your income drops to $500k a year. Hard to adjust.

The truth is most people are equipped for survival and not failure or thriving and lack situational awareness and the ability to adjust when the situation changes.

7:17 pm • Wednesday • August 11, 2010

@ManchuCandidate: Win $60 mil in the lottery, give 30-50 percent to The Man, buy a $3 million house and there goes a big part of it, although keeping afloat on $25 million or so should be doable.

Radio dude said Pippen burnt through $120 million in career earnings. Other reports said he was more than happy to win $2 million judgment recently against his former law firm (he wanted $8 million) for legal malpractice relating to the purchase of a Gulfstream jet he borrowed $5 million for. The jet was idle while Pippen owned it because of engine problems not disclosed due to a missed inspection that he blamed the lawyers for.

And here I am still brown bagging it (‘cept I bought my salad today that I ate at my desk reading the webz) and driving a 10 year old Toyota truck.

7:50 pm • Wednesday • August 11, 2010

@redmanlaw:
In Canada City, lottery winners don’t pay tax (although that might have changed recently.)

One would think it’s better, but it makes the lotto like crack as it’s not an annuity but you get the entire lump sum all at once. They did a study about Canada City lotto winners and found that 75-85% of lottery winners were worse off 5 years after winning.

Add a comment