Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozrael
@Knife: Not necessarily. Hot topics like abortion and such are pretty well locked down. You can apply to add your FACTS/ETC. to the debate, but they won't allow people to edit it at all if they're just going to blank the page and say ABORTIONZ RONG!
|
The abortion page doesn't appear to be locked down at the moment so, yes, you can simply change it; no application necessary. Of course, if you change it to say "ABORTIONZ RONG!" it will be labeled "vandalism" and get reverted since, if nothing else, such an edit will violate the standards for Wikipedia (including, ironically, the
NPOV policy against bias). However, if you were to change the wording to be more neutral, it's unlikely to get reverted. Undue reverts are frowned upon while spontaneous changes are not...
Quote:
|
Thus, the possibility for bias emerges because the administrators decide whether something is worthy of inclusion to their page, and they can have a liberal bias (not too pronounced or it would be noticed/the more moderates would object).
|
It's more like the administrators decide whether something is worthy of exclusion to the page after the fact (it's not
their page). This may seem like a minor point but all changes are preserved in the page history and nothing is excluded from the
talk pages so all grievances are seen.
We can even put this to the test. As I suggested earlier, find a specific point of bias. We can change it and see how long it takes for that change to be reverted. If your change is sufficiently neutral, I'm pretty sure it won't get reverted...
Quote:
|
I read the Conservapedia article on their riot list against Wikipedia, and they do have a very, very minor point with a lot of the things. Certainly not enough to reject the colossal amount of information Wikipedia has, however.
|
I think it's about time we bring these out into the open. Specifically, with which points, however minor, does anyone agree?
-----Added 29/9/2008 at 06 : 04 : 42-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by guccilvr
well I wouldn't say that Darwin actually answered anything.. but that's another thread for a different day; but yes making that leap is pretty silly and unfounded.
|
Hey, I'm interested in such a thread! I think that Willravel (and many others) overstate things but to say he answered
nothing is a bold statement and I'm keen to see how you would support it. Start the thread and I'll meet you there!