User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Template:Fix bunching  

Please address the problem of liberal/atheist bias in Wikipedia

Dear Jimbo, First my must be apologizing for my poor English which is not my first language. Secondly I am here to bring to your attention a much serious problem of the liberal left-wing bias in Wikipedia. I understand that self sellection bias causes this but it is not acceptable. The article on creation is located at Creation myth if I am correct but the evolution theory is located St evolution. Theyboth should be listed as "theorys". In addition the Obama article is apologetic and white washed while George W. Bush looks like a court hearing. Also on global warming the article is a highly defensive piece that promotes the theory and deflects any properalyreferenced alternate views or criticism of the theory. Much Thanks for your time. 184.168.192.27 (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reread creation myth - it's not about Creationism; rather it's about ancient cultures' mythologies. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 05:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The IP editor may also find Genesis creation narrative to be of interest. LadyofShalott 05:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Conservapedia would be more to your tastes. Like beauty, bias is often in the eye of the beholder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is about co-operation and verification, it will never appeal to people of right-wing and/or fundamentalist religious views. Bevo74 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This kind of bigotry only supports the original poster's position. Deli nk (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that is a knee jerk reaction and doesnt look good on the poster.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to take issue with directing the OP to Conservapedia. They don't think too highly of furriners there. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am quite disappointed with the reactions to the ip stated concerns; it is closed minds, and not the particular political allegiance they subscribe to, that restricts the breadth and diversity of input that is going to provide truly neutral articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It's the same BAWWWing that goes on with the "OMG LIBERAL MEDIA", "OMG LIBERAL ACADEMIA", etc... Being "truly neutral" doesn't always mean that both "sides" of an opinion get equal facetime. Otherwise the lead of the Barack Obama article would have to note the birther/Muslim conspiracies. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why doesnt it? Especially after the fiasco of the Hawaii governor's inability to come up with the proof he promised? Im not saying that it should have any definitive answers, just that the questions are there.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Lulz. That you label that a "fiasco" pretty much proves my point. Tarc (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

How so... the guy swore he was going to put the birth certificate question to rest and couldnt produce anything to do so.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's because some interested party are not interested in letting it rest, regardless of evidence. And some are not letting it rest even now, when the issue is obviously moot.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing is proven when documents are hidden from view. It's not moot because of the question of re election. It'll be interesting to see what comes of the laws that various state's are in the process of passing requiring proof of a candidate's eligibility.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• • • Unfortunately, accusing Wikipedia of liberal/atheist bias has become something of a routine for the religious right. My comment was not intended to WP:BITE, but to point out that accusing other people of bias is usually seen at Wikipedia as a failure to assume good faith. Evolution is one of the issues where the religious right is never likely to be in tune with Wikipedia's way of doing things.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • 'Bias' is clearly in the eye of the beholder: try adding anything negative to the Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck articles and see how the 'liberals' react there... On a more serious note, I'd have to suggest that compared to say mainstream US politics, there may be a slight leftward bias on Wikipedia, but that is purely a reflection of the fact that this is an international project, and the remainder of the English-speaking world is on average well to the left of the US. . As for any other causes of systematic bias, I could only suggest that those on the left are more likely to contribute their time for free. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Those on the other side of the pond need to understand that we rule the world. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Which side of the pond are you posting from? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

no, we just let you think you do ;) @Fainites; his user page says the US. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

What interestes me here is that there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding about the definitions of the terms "theory" and "myth." A theory is defined as: "n. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." This definitely describes the theory of evolution. I agree with the IP that articles about theories should be labeled as such. It is quite a bit better than a hypothesis, but is definitely not a law: "n. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity."

A myth, on the other hand, is defined as: "n. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth." There should be nothing offensive about this term. The story of Genesis does not qualify as a theory or a law, but definitely falls under this description of a myth. It is a simple category that all religions fall under.

When I was in high school, a class was taught called "The Bible as Mythology." Nobody complained about "separation of church and state" issues, because the Bible was being studied as a work of literature. No fundamentalists complained either, because the Bible was being studied. Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As a liberal atheist I often come up against what appears to be right-wing/conservative-religious articles with heavy focus on "that side of things". Then I see "liberal-atheist" content that seems overly polite to the opposite side of the spectrum. It is probably adjustment bias, the right almost certainly sees the same articles and thinks it is being too nice to the left, or is too left wing. This is the issue with having a diverse range of people writing articles. In contentious areas things muddle around until they emerge somewhere in the middle, or in rare cases with a reasonable level of bias (if you have a strong editing contingent from one side). This is basically representative of human society, but in text. FWIW I think some of our more contentious areas are quite well done; evolution vs. creationism arena in general tends towards the "scientific method" objectivity style. The problem, I suppose, is such methodology is more in line with liberal agendas than anything else. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that a problem here is that the original poster has mixed up two very different things, and that has tended to make the following conversation less clear than it might have been. He basically gave three examples, which to simply were:

• Creation given as "myth", evolution more as "fact".
• Global warming, lack of balance.
• Obama article vs. Bush article.

Well these are all very different. As to first, this is not a liberal-vs-conservative issue and it's a disservice to conservaatives to cast it as such. It is more an issue of "people who, at the end of of the day, would probably be happier simply not reading Enlightenment-based works such as encyclopedias" vs. the rest of us. As to second, this is also not a liberal-vs-conservative issue and it's also a disservice to conservatives to cast it as such. It is more an issue of people who are polemecists and/or just reject the scientific method in general vs. the rest of us.

However, the third example, Obama article vs. Bush article, is quite different and could be a true example of liberal bias. The questions I would ask about this is:

1. Is it true? (That the articles differ significantly in tone or emphasis, that is.)
2. If it is true, is it indicative of a general situation?
3. If it is indicative of a general situation, is that a problem?
4. If it is a problem, is there any reasonable way to address it?

I haven't checked, but for various reasons I wouldn't be surprised if #1 and #2 are true, and those are true it certainly is a problem in my opinion. I can't think of any reasonably effective way to address it, though. Herostratus (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP probably has a legit point about the Obama article. I once made a suggestion to improve the article on the talk page and was immediately attacked by the editors there. I didn't come back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Quest, it's a legit point on almost every contentious article, except it has nothing particularly to do with liberalism or atheism. each contentious topic area has its own cadre of editors who are de facto in charge of editing - who that cadre is varies from topic to topic, and is usually determined by whomever manages to suppress other viewpoints by harassing other editors off the page or getting them blocked or banned outright. For instance, I personally am constantly running up against a cadre of science editors who show a poor grasp of the principles of science but have a slick machine for getting editors they have identified as 'fringe advocates' in trouble with administrators. Wikipedia is a lot like Afghanistan that way - weak, ineffectual centralized authority laid over a system of strong regional tribal units who guard their respective turfs zealously. It actually works better than you might expect: more extreme ideological positions usually lose the battles for control of a page to cliques which are aggressive but hold more moderate positions (due to a few different factors), but such pages never actually achieve neutrality, they just become prejudicially mainstream. sad, really, but not something that's going to change without a dedicated effort. --Ludwigs2 00:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I hang out at the Obama article, and to a much lesser extent Sarah Palin's - and I rarely patrol the Bush article. Is it biased that I've tried to deal with the legions of sockpuppets and troublemakers in one instance and not another? The Obama article was the subject of concerted attacks a bunch of single-purpose editors, some externally organized and advocated, before and for several months after the presidential election. It was a constant drumbeat of what you see on some of the attack blogs: why don't we report that he's a Muslim, not born in America, stole the election, communist, fascist, racist, terrorist sympathizer, fake academic credentials, affirmative action baby, etc. Much of this was very determined battleground editing, ranging from sockpuppets to procedural games designed to harass regular editors. We went through article probation, a poorly handled arbitration case (to disclose my bias about that - I got dragged into the mud there). I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for accusations of whitewashing, liberal bias, and all that nonsense, in the context of complaining that the Obama article doesn't include enough disparagement. It's true of course that everybody has a bias, and even the most neutral factual project cannot help but get caught up in questions of perspective. But the best way out isn't to set up everything on a balance scale and try to even it all out... where would you say the balance should be? Obama is 50% bad and 50% good? That's an exercise in bias, not an exercise in neutrality. It's better to simply stick with some rules about how to present information and try to work it out. Even biased people can do things in a neutral way. Neutrality of the effort and process is sometimes a better yardstick than neutrality of the result, because who is to say what the truly neutral outcome is and judge whether the actual outcome lies to the left or right of it. The sentiment that there is a conspiracy among the media to lie about history, and that it should be corrected by subterfuge and advocacy on Wikipedia is, for whatever reason, coming disproportionately from people in a camp that is often identified as conservative. The sentiment that we should just present the facts and let them fall where they may seems to be more of a liberal-identifying thing. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of this discussion here?[1] An IP makes what appears to be a good faith suggestion to improve the article. The IP gets a couple reasonable responses, but the discussion is closed down before it finishes. I'm not sure that's really the way to welcome newbies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about offering a new editor a nice hot cup of Shut The Hell Up. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? I wouldn't have closed the discussion so quickly or in that way, but there was no viable proposal to improve the article, just a perennial proposal made at least 100 times already and covered by the article FAQ. The editor was treated with dignity, engaged, and consensus explained. They were starting to advocate for something that had somewhere around zero chance of gaining consensus. There's no way all those proposals to highlight fringe theories and political smears on Obama are going to get a full hearing every time they get brought up. If the editor is truly a newbie, advocating against consensus on important high conflict articles is not the best place to get started. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

When we close down a discussion like that, we're basically telling the IP that we don't care about their opinions. A newbie is not going to understand that their proposal had almost zero chance of being implemented or the difficulty in gaining consensus. The best you can do is to patiently explain it to them and hope that they stick around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, the editor who closed that discussion, is participating here. Perhaps a nod to decorum and avoiding biteyness? There's nothing to indicate this new user is anything but sincere. Some of the article's most prolific sockers and agitators have learned to adopt that tone too ("I'm a liberal and I voted for Obama, but don't you find it strange that the cabal that runs Wikipedia won't let anyone mention [insert fringe theories, astroturfing, and anti-Obama talking points]"? The lesson here, something Jimbo embodies and that many admins would do well to learn, is that it doesn't hurt to be dignified, open-minded, and courteous even while being firm about process. So what if you're polite to 20 trolls and sockpuppets in the course of being polite to 5 sincere editors they're trying to impersonate? Coming full circle on this, America is its own political island at times but a significant part of the population, including those that use and comment on Wikipedia, are convinced that like the rest of the media it's run by a bunch of liberal operatives. Funny, because I don't sense that Jimbo or WMF are particularly liberal or political at all. The editors are probably more liberal than average, most people who write a lot in public forums are. And to some degree people who complain, game, and sabotage public forums seem to be leaning towards the conservative opposition. These are all perceptions. I don't know what you can do about perceptions, but in terms of maintaining an encyclopedia you really do have to get all this liberal/conservative stuff out of your head and just look at writing articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is atheist biased? then thank goodness. Check out the real world, religion isn't all it's cracked up to be. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the above statement "creation presented as myth, evolution as fact," that's because Biblical creation is a Bronze Age myth, just like the Egyptian ones, except for the fact that this one somehow survived a little longer. Evolution is a fact, and is treated here as such. Ronk01 talk 02:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith with the editor I believe he meant "creation theory", not the various creation mythologies. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 03:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. Experimental science deals with the acquisition of facts (indisputable observations). Theoretical science deals in degrees of probability based on those facts. While I believe that the Theory of Evolution is the closest thing we have yet, science has proved time and again that, with each new discovery, these theories are always in a constant state of change. Just like religion, theories fall into the category of a belief. In this case, a belief that the degrees of probability, as we currently understand them, represent some underlying fundamental truth. ("Based on the evidence, I think this is how it happened.") A "truth" that is often mistaken for for a fact. What I think is important is to present the theories and religions both, but never to advocate the belief. Zaereth (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

So are you stating that we must treat Pastafarianism on equal footing with General Relativity? Both are hypotheses, but one is based on evidence, and is infinitely more credible. The other is, like every Religious myth, the invention of the Human mind. Ronk01 talk 03:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pasta exists, in its inherent noodly goodness. I believe in relativity, but I've never seen it ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No. There are also other guidelines I would follow besides what can be verified as factual, such as significance and relevance to the particular article, and notability. I never said that all theories were on equal footing. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, scientific theory is a commonly mis-characterised thing; and certainly does not classify alongside belief :) The mistake, Zaereth, is in seeing the words "Theoretical Science", conflating that with scientific theories and then assuming that none of it is empirical. Evolution is the classic example of this mistake in practice; the theory of evolution is a scientific framework based on observable phenomena. Experimental/Theoretical Science is not about fact vs. theory; that is like comparing Apples and Skyscrapers :) Generally speaking, in this age, the scientific method is held to a higher standard than belief - particularly where they overlap. Were Wikipedia written 150 years ago (perhaps even 100 years ago) it would have been different I am sure. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you're misunderstanding me. A common misconception among many of those who are not involved with science is that the theories are fact. From Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method: "Public pundits, not only the public, drastically misconceive what science is, what it means to be scientific, and the relationship between science and technology. Scientists themselves, moreover, and science writers hold many of the same misconceptions." Theories are based on fact, and the good ones have been tested repeatedly against emperical evidence, but they are still ideas (notions, beliefs, opinions, conclusions, or whatever synonym you like...). From the book Theory of Scentific Method: "In order to do this we must reconsider, in a more definite and precise shape, the doctrine that has already been laid down; --that our knowledge consists in applying ideas to facts; and that the conditions of real knowledge are that the ideas be distinct and appropriate, and exactly applied to clear and cetain facts. The steps by which our knowledge is advanced are those by which one or the other of these two processes is rendered more complete; -- by which Conceptions are made more clear in themselves, or by which the Conceptions more strictly bind together the facts. These two processes may be considered as together constituting the whole formation of our knowledge; and the principles which have been established in The History of Scientific Ideas bear principally on the former of these two operations; --upon the business of elevating our conceptions to the highest possible point of precision and generality." Zaereth (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sort of, but it is important to remember that "notions, beliefs, opinions, conclusions" are all very different things, indeed they are different forms of an idea. A belief, for example, is an idea that generally does not gel well with the scientific method. Indeed any theory based on belief is not generally scientific. At the opposit end of the spectrum you have the "theory of evolution", which is a model based on empirical evidence. I do see what you were originally saying; but in this case it is not a good example because the theory of evolution is not really a theory, at least not in the way most understand "theory" to be :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda thought we were talking from different sides of the same page, which was why I wanted to clear up any misunderstanding. Yes, different word have differnt connotations depending on context. On both the religious and scientific sides of an argument, there are fundamentalists, (people who believe that their favorite idea is the gospel truth), and will often defend that theory visciously. I think it is important to present both scientific theories and religious beliefs in their appropriate places simply as differing ideas. We should present all of the facts, but should not portray the ideas themselves as fact. Some people believe the science while some people believe in the religion. Some people believe in both. (Personally, I've never seen anything in the Bible that contradicts evolution. Much like in Copernicus' time, nothing in the Bible actually said that the Earth was in the center of the universe.) I just think we should take care not to trample on each others beliefs. Zaereth (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, even as someone who identifies as "liberal", when I look at Obama's article it certainly looks like it was written mostly by Obama supporters, and when I look at Bush's article it certainly looks like it was written mostly by Bush opponents. It therefore doesn't surprise me that there is a thriving Conservapedia, but no thriving liberal equivalent. Sandboxer (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In other news, the Winston Churchill article looks as if it was written mostly by supporters of Churchill, and the Joseph Stalin article looks as if it was written mostly by Stalin opponents. The simple fact is: Right-wing Americans are spoilt by a media that believes balance consists in identifying two opposing sides and then treating them as if they are both equally right, no matter how detached from reality one of them may be. That's not how balance and fairness work in the real world, and it's not how it works in academia. It's also not how it works in encyclopedias. Hans Adler 17:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that we want to base the argument that we display no bias on the analogy that Bush=Stalin? Sandboxer (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Spot on, Hans. (And the poster immediately above misses the point entirely if he thinks your post equates Bush and Stalin.) This isn't limited to left-right political issues; we have similar problems trying to cover scientific and medical topics. When talking about the safety and efficacy of vaccinations and their role in public health, the U.S. press gives equal time to scientists and Playboy models. The media generally try to avoid any judgements about what is and is not true in their reporting, preferring to "present all the sides" and "let the viewer/reader/audience decide" (totally ignoring their responsibility for framing and contextualizing the information). There is a reason why I quote Okrent's law on my user page: "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is definitely some institutional bias. My view is (1) legitimate concern about institutional bias is often drowned out by disruptive trolling users who are just seeking to push a POV. It's unfair to lump those with legitimate concerns in with the racist trolling SPAs at the Obama articles. (2) It's not nearly as it used to be - look at some articles about conservatives from 3-4 years ago and they were thinly veiled attacks. (3) There is a lot of the bias is in sources considered "reliable". Opinion pieces from left-leaning sites (Salon, Huffington Post, Media Matters) are treated like gospel by some. (4) It's often much harder to get bias/innuendo/attacks removed from conservative articles than from liberal ones. For example, several years ago, there was a left-wing column that attacked Fred Thompson for doing a commercial for LifeLock. It was all innuendo and the column was roundly criticized in the media as a hit piece. This was actually in a BLP and had people defending it as appropriate: "Thompson has urged people in radio commercials to contact a company that says it fights identity thieves and that was co-founded by a man accused of taking money from consumer bank accounts without permission."[2] It was like pulling teeth to get that ridiculous nonsense out of a BLP and it shouldn't be. --B (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, reality has a well-known liberal bias, at least from the point of view of rednecks. Both evolution and global warming are scientific, not political topics, nearly anywhere in the world. And for both there is nearly unanimous support among scientists and the informed part of the world population. Of course an encyclopaedia that prefers reliable and academic sources will reflect this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly even though I mentioned neither evolution nor global warming, that is what I was talking about. I'm unclear how the scientific consensus point of view on evolution and global warming justifies making articles about conservative politicians into attack pieces. --B (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have a slightly liberal bent and denying this is just fooling yourself. It does not have a radical left leaning, though. Wikipedia is not neutral. Look at the Obama article and the talk page and it is quite clear. That's life. Trying to change would be like trying to overthrow the government of Canada...just won't happen. Trying to deny it is typical of the establishment, in this case, the Wikipedia establishment. Lettertojw (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

ALSO. Vast majority of an editor is liberal. Must commence effort to join many many conservative editor. Plus articles on socialism nanny state etc are very leftward bias. Thank you much for read this Sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.168.192.27 (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. Unfortunately no matter how hard I try, only my feet have ever really been conservative. I managed to make my knee conservative once but it didn't last long. So the vast majority of me is liberal :-( Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Bias is a fact of life. It is impossible to avoid bias, either as an individual or an organization. Read that last sentence again, then read it again. The "individual" means that even if it were possible to produce a perfectly neutral encyclopedia, one's own personal bias would still skew what one read therein. The "organization" part means that even if one were perfectly neutral as an individual, one would still be unable to escape being influenced by bias as part of the group. The fact that neither a perfectly neutral encyclopedia nor a perfectly neutral individual is possible means that it is all an inescapable muddle. Learn to live with it. Revcasy (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to avoid bias, either as an individual or an organization. So you say, but are you sure that this is not just an opinion towards which you are inclined? --FormerIP (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Well played sir. Revcasy (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just by reading the comments here, I would say many, if not most, editors are liberal... given the disparaging ad hominem remarks against conservatives. I just loved the "reality has a leftward bias" comment. Maybe his reality does.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You don't have much experience with international projects, do you? "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" is a good description of the situation in the US. Internationally it's not true, and that's not just because of the strange meaning that the word "liberal" has acquired there. (I am not aware of any other country that uses the word in this way, except maybe Canada due to US influence.) From my point of view as a German who has lived in the UK, Wikipedia has a number of strong biases: e.g. for treating religiously motivated pseudoscience with more respect than it deserves, for using the word "liberal" in an odd way, for using American units of measurement, for unnecessarily stressing people's ethnicities, and for scientific and moral relativism that comes close to postmodernism. Editors from other countries will notice yet other biases. This project is based in the US, but it is not meant to be culturally dominated by the US. There is a very strong US influence here, but to some editors that's not enough. I wonder why they don't simply go to Conservapedia. Hans Adler 18:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Canada uses similar terminology, but with a multi-party system, the word "liberal" isn't such a boogeyman, though "conservative" tends to be. The notation above that reality has a "liberal bias", I think is fairly apt when describing much of the western world's views in comparison to American views. For instance, in Canada, I am considered very much a conservative politically, yet translated to the American sphere, would probably be viewed as left wing. So for those Americans who are conservative minded, the appearance of a bias would definitely exist. The thing is, I've not seen a reason explaining why there is anything wrong in this regard. Resolute 18:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you got me. I, for one, am very liberal, and very atheist. I should be ashamed for agreeing with myself. No ad hominem from me, but still. On the other hand, the original poster basically came in and poked the ant's nest with a stick. It is hard to have a constructive conversation when you are a busy little ant, just chillin', hanging with the homies, doing constructive little ant things and some bloke comes and pokes your home with a right big stick--things tend to degenerate right from the ol' get-go. Revcasy (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as politics in the U.S. goes, it seems like nothing but white-liners versus yellow-liners to me. Although the terms may be reversed, (I used the common motorcycle term), history does seem to have a way of repeating itself. Zaereth (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that in general, the facts are liberal. Compare a heavily footnoted Noam Chomsky work versus a vague Glenn Beck diatribe that cites a few sources and deliberately misrepresents each one of them. Wikipedia's liberal bias results because it includes a lot of facts. Liberals tend to be more inclusionist, knowing that covering both sides provides a net advantage, while conservatives hold a hard line and revert everything, usually with great success, because they never, ever give up on taking out information. It's almost as if someone were paying them... But so long as any facts remain, there is still a so-called liberal bias. Of course, this is only approximate, as the terms are approximate, but it's how I feel. Wnt (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Blatant Bias in Shakespeare Authorship Question page by Majority Editors

Dear Sir;

The majority group editing this page, Stratfordian in loyalty, seeks to make the authorship page a permanent fixture in Wikipedia by achieving featured article status. Tom Reedy and Nishidani are the prominent editors with this stated goal. In effect, the Shakespeare Authorship page will serve as a permanent propaganda bastion for the status quo position. This is unacceptable use of Wikipedia pages.

As an indication of their biased use of sources and/or unjustified emphasis, either of which should disqualify the page from featured article status, I present here a typical paragraph and will demonstrate its unacceptable scholarship.

"In 1602, Ralph Brooke, the York Herald, accused Sir William Dethick, the Garter King of Arms, of elevating 23 unworthy persons to the gentry. One of these was Shakespeare's father, who had applied for arms 34 years earlier but had to wait for the success of his son before they were granted in 1596. Brooke included a sketch of the Shakespeare arms, captioned "Shakespear ye Player by Garter". The grants, including John Shakespeare's, were defended by Dethick and Clarenceux King of Arms William Camden, the foremost antiquary of the time. In his Remaines Concerning Britaine, published in 1605 but completed two years earlier, Camden names Shakespeare as one of the "most pregnant witts of these ages our times, whom succeeding ages may justly admire".[86]"

The clear import of this paragraph is that William Shakspere of Stratford obtained his family coat of arms in 1596 by bribery, for which Dethick was notorious, as indicated by the number of other frauds. He was not merely accused as the paragraph temporizes; he was successfully prosecuted. (Gervinus, Shakespeare Commentaries, p. 467) Camden, Dethick's superior, was not implicated although he signed the 1599 confirmation. (Brooke, Shakespeare of Stratford, pp. 32-4) The Shakspere coat of arms could not be retroactively withdrawn. The "father...had to wait for the success of his son" infers that Shakspere's becoming a famous playwright facilitated the approval. This is an unfounded inference, without supporting references. Four of the five sentences are unfootnoted. Three of five contain errors.

The paragraph is written in such a fashion that no connections are attempted between evident criminal activity, the unproven Stratfordian Soul of the Age cited in it, and the Shakespeare canon, wherein honor as a characteristic of chivalry is featured 690 times. Nothing fits but the absence of fit is ignored.

The unbiased facts are that in 1569, when John Shakspere originally applied for gentleman status, his claim was rejected, non sanz droict, meaning "no, without right". (E.K. Chambers, Life of William Shakespeare) Shakspere's long rejected application thirty-four years later succeeded by corrupt practice, his son's William's.

Camden's statement above ["one of the most pregnant witts..."] had nothing to do with Shakspere of Stratford or the coat of arms controversy. It was praise for, among several others, the playwright Shakespeare whose identity is the very matter in question in the Wikipedia page. The majority editors' sleight of hand transfers honor given the "Shakespeare" playwright to their claimant, assuming but not proving him as that playwright. Footnote 87 is a diatribe against anyone's reservation regarding the claim. It is shameful as scholarship.

Camden never praised Shakspere, as claimed above. He was schoolmaster, tutor, and friend to Ben Jonson, who famously ridiculed Shakspere as the pretender Sogliardo; who bastardized his heraldry; and who satirized his identifying motto, the latter an anomaly never once used by the family. Jonson switched Shakspere's "Not Without Right" to Sogliardo's "Not Without Mustard" in 'Every Man Out of His Humour'.

Camden later commented on suppressed freedom of expression in his time as the work of "those who think the memory of succeeding ages may be extinguished by present power." He added, these were “things secret and abstruse I have not pried into.” (W. David Kay, Ben Jonson: A Literary Life, p. 70) Jonson as a dramatist could lampoon, but Camden as an historian could not tell what he knew. The paragraph distorts what he did when an official and what he said as an historian.

Footnote 86 has nothing to do with Camden’s praise for the playwright Shakespeare. It is a non sequitur reference to James Shapiro's undocumented general work, 'Contested Will', an acceptable Stratfordian source.

In answer to the obvious question, why did I not present these arguments in the editing process, I regret to respond they have been presented in the past. Each and every objection by me or any Oxfordian editor has been rejected as a matter of policy. Something is always wrong, no matter how well documented. But Reedy alters the page at will. He buried the significant fact that the U.S. Supreme Court justices who ruled against clear and convincing Oxfordian evidence in 1987, later reversed this judgment and a number of others doubt the Stratfordian thesis. They are characterized as celebrity endorsers, not professional experts on probative evidence.

Wikipedia featured-article status will install a multitude of such falsehoods, each and all slanted towards the status quo interpretation of the Shakespeare legend. There is no contrary scholarship allowed, which ensures the Wikipedia page will be a joke to the knowing and misleading propaganda to the many, as more of the truth emerges elsewhere without editor suppressions. Zweigenbaum (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As Jimbo knows, this has been exhaustively discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Should have checked Zweigenbaum's talk page first. Posting here violates a three month topic ban placed last month. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do people get worked up over things like this? I would guess that the average person doesn't give a crap about the SAQ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do I feel that your username somehow answers your question?--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Zweigenbaum now blocked for 55 hours, this is his second block for violating his topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Kotniski: The persuit of knowledge is one thing. But getting so worked up about something that requires bans and blocks is quite another. You know, some topic areas I undersand can be contentious (Abortion, Mass killings under communist regimes, Palastine, etc.) but Shakespeare? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Because he is the Greatest Writer Ever, and when the True Story of his life and work is discovered, it will Transform the World. You don't believe me? Read the writings of these ideologues. Also it will prove that the outsiders are right and professors are wrong, wrong, wrong. Paul B (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I have no problem understanding how one can get quite passionate about Shakespeare. I mean, it's Shakespeare! No, what I have trouble understanding is how one can, in all seriousness, make the argument that because all of academia and the mainstream support the traditional attribution and dismiss as meritless all alternative attributions (which complaint, you'll note, is oft repeated on the relevant pages) it is critically important that Wikipedia allow them a platform for advocacy, even after repeatedly being pointed at WP:NOR and “Verifiability, not truth”. The Escheresque knot of logic required to consider that reasoning valid is, I fear, beyond me. Anyways, the editor in question is at present unable to participate so it is probably best if we refrain from further comment here (and I'm sure Jimbo wouldn't mind a moment's peace and quiet on the social club formerly known as is his user talk page). --Xover (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Further to my comments in the section above - while having a closed mind disallows a comprehensive discourse, having one so open that any mischief may take a lodging there is equally to be avoided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • This is an old sentiment, but you put it wonderfully to the extent that I thought you must simply be repeating an old saying. But a search of google suggests that the phrase "so open that any mischief may take a lodging there" is your own, and so I congratulate you for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Er... um... Thanks - it must have been the reading of too many quotes by Samuel Johnson. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The idea in the quote above is commonly attributed to Richard Dawkins as "By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."[3] However, it may have been around for a lot longer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
        • • • As Jimbo said, the sentiment is historical. My exposure to it was "My mind - ain't so open - that anything - can crawl right in!" from the track "My Mind Aint So Open", by Howard Devoto of Magazine, the b-side to the debut Shot By Both Sides single. One takes ones lessons where one finds them... LessHeard vanU (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC).
        • Shakespeare authorship is hardly Creationism, though. I'm not persuaded by these alternative theories either, but still, that's no excuse for tweaking the facts to make the standard theory seem stronger that it really is. If there's anything that justifies a chap's getting worked up about anything on Wikipedia, then misrepresentation of sources to advance a position ought to be it. (I'm not saying that necessarily happened in this case, but at least it seems to have appeared to do so, and the objection should be answered by citing a source that says the thing, not with ad homs.) --Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, well, in this case the source is certainly provided: Pendleton, Thomas A. (1994). Review of "Irvin Matus's Shakespeare, IN FACT". Shakespeare Newsletter (University of Illinois at Chicago) 44 (Summer): 21, 26–30. Of course, as it is part of the Grand Conspiracy to Hide the Truth, it doesn't count for Oxfordians. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is Wikipedia hiring? B-Machine (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It says here that the Wikimedia Foundation (of which Wikipedia is a project) is hiring staff for a variety of roles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Love the Story Teller job! Bielle (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Other question

DId you unblock me on wikia? If you did then Thanks a bunch dude :D. Slipknot Darkrai (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I am User:Noob saibot red. Users block me because I made 2 accounts. I created alot of accounts because I wanted not to blocked. I regret the things I've done. So can you please help me? I create 1 more account to talk to you.

I make helpful edits and still get blocked... So can you help me? You the reason everyone's here.

Answer me at User talk:Noob saibot red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Jerb (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes RFC

Not sure if you have been following Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011‎, but FYI it was "restarted" today with a different format. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Argh. Despite my attempts to move conversation in a forward direction some users are obsessed with obstructing all forward progress. Part of their objection is that they feel you have decreed by fiat that PC will remain indefinitely. I'm sure you are probably even sicker of this than I am and I know you have a new rugrat on your hands, but if you could make some sort of statement on this matter it could be very helpful. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the idea that all change must spring from some mythical "consensus" that stifles any forward progress. This has been discussed for years, with no result. Perhaps it's time to try something different from endless community discussions. Kevin (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy has said many times that he believes community consensus is a must have for PC. I suspect he still feels the same way, but I'll wait to hear from him. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Jimmy already recently commented on request that he supports the tool, as I understand Jimmy.s recent position is to reduce any perceived and actual authority on this project. Discussion is ongoing and the wheels are not dropping off, if a majority wish to affect any change then , as usual, be bold. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm May 2007 - Feb 2011, I see now that things are going great, and that discussion has certainly advanced the issue. Kevin (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's mythical--the mythical ideological foundation for all of our decision making. Or maybe the fact that we have not reached consensus means that there is no consensus to implement PC, and never will be. It could be countered that the failure to accept "no consensus" as a valid result is what causes the process to drag on endlessly. Revcasy (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A really tire of this debate its been at least 4 years of this. Can We come to a "this is it" vote with the next Arbcom Elections? I dont have strong opinions either ways just tired of the debate either... we have it or we dont. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 04:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. I dropped out of this debate several years ago myself. I assumed my personal involvement was not needed and eventually someone else would do it and I could look somewhere on Wikipedia and find a definitive explanation of what PC is and when we are supposed to use it. Sadly, that's not the case. I sincerely hope that that this is the "do we do it or not?" discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Open letter to Jimbo

There is a big problem in Wikipedia.

One is the lack of civility.

The other is the juvenile behavior of administrators, when unable to provide an explanation, will suddenly accuse people of being socks. In the 50's, if you couldn't present a good argument, just call the other guy a communist. In Wikipedia, call them a sock.

I used to edit here but was sick and tired of the above 2 problems. I now edit in another website which is more reputable. It is a technical website and doesn't have the wide exposure here, but it is very reliable and they act civilized there.

Jimbo, I urge you to try to solve the above 2 problems. Think hard. I am sure you could come up with a solution. One possible thing to do would be to have no policy on sockpuppetry so that people couldn't start calling people socks went they are too juvenile to think of a rational explanation about their opinion. Trusted users could then help solve editorial disputes, keeping in mind that logic, not voting, counts. Another way would be for administrators to be experts, not just juveniles voting for themselves (and say they want to vandal-fight). These 2 suggestions may not be perfect but keep thinking, Jimbo!

Another problem are the people that can do checkusering. They snoop and violate people's privacy. They keep the results, in violation of WP policy. Not much different from the secret police. I have seen people who make comments on ANI and they are immediately blocked. Sometimes, they are disruptive but other times the checkuser is disruptive in that they snoop every time they don't like someone. It is this immaturity that harms Wikipedia.

As a show of good faith, I am not listing some bad editors/administrators. The point isn't a specific issue or a specific person but rather the problems listed above. Good luck, Jimbo. Lettertojw (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wouldn't expect a response from Jimmy, since he no longer seems to care about whether the governance of Wikipedia is important enough for him to be bothered with. And, to be honest, I do tend to agree with him. Rodhullandemu 04:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh No. The Hidden Dangers of WYSIWYG Editing...

Dear Sir,

Perhaps you may not realise it, wysiwyg is more bad than good. You know about wikia yes? Well wikia has a too large share of immature child editors who are drawn to it by the simple editing. Maturity on wikipedia is declining we do not need more children. Also WYSIWYG is a nightmare on slow Internet connection, the long page, the bad browser, the old computer, the JavaScript deficient Browser. Also it lowers productivity. Template editing is painfully slow with Wikia RICHTEXT Editor. As is formatting. As is cstegory work. And it has a tendency to break pages. On Wikia I have to turn off RtE EVERY TUME ILOAD AN EDIT SCREEN. if you make a wysiwyg that can only be disabled thru preferences I will leave for citizendium or conservapedia as will many others

Also what theheck happened to Readableness? The font size for wiki on my computer has dropped from 9 pt to 6.5 pt and I have not changed any Settings...

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.168.192.27 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I can answer that last one: when you hire a “designer” (and without intending any slight to the interaction team, I here use that term loosely) the first thing they will do is reduce the font size to 80% and then double the line spacing (really, just keep an eye out whenever some traditional web site gets a redesign). They do this because it makes the page, visually, look more balanced; and they justify it by claiming it improves readability (it doesn't, generally). However, unless a few mainly aesthetic visual glitches do not bother you, most web browsers allow you to adjust the base font size or minimum font size (easier in some than others, but it's usually possible if you want it badly enough). You can probably find more people able to help you with this on the Village Pump. --Xover (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you create an account, you can use an alternative skin to view Wikipedia. In May last year the default skin was changed from "Monobook" to "Vector", at the time of the change many users reported a decrease in the text size. Although I don't know whether this was fixed (I dislike Vector for a variety of reasons and so don't use it), it is possible that this is (related to) your issue. See Wikipedia:Skin for screenshots of the alternatives, including ones that should work better on older computers, and instructions on how to change your skin should you desire. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

US Gov editing

The US Army has stated that want to

Speaking to the general's character, current and former U.S. military officers who worked with Caldwell said he is an example of a modern Army officer who was trying to bring the Army's "strategic communications" into the 21st century, encouraging the units he commanded at Ft. Leavenworth, the Army's premier training facility, to use social media, blogging and Wikipedia as part of their efforts to shape their message.

Would you support such efforts by the US military? (Also see related)Smallman12q (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/24/petraeus-orders-probe-claim-army-official-wanted-manipulate-senators/#ixzz1GAFiw2bH

(talk page stalker)The allegations, if true, would not only be violations of our own rules (WP:NPOV in particular), but also of the Smith-Mundt Act, passed in 1948 to prevent the use of propaganda techniques against U.S. citizens by Federal agencies. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Smith-Mundt only covers the Executive Branch; my bad. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and likely WP:COI! I wonder if we can identify one of these "army editors". NickCT (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But I feel that we would have found one by now, considering the numbers of pagewatchers or relevant articles. We could search using WikiScanner though. Ronk01 talk 04:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... Wikiscan em... Just glancing, I thought this guy was interesting. NickCT (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, not that interesting. Only occasionally edits. NickCT (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

He would fit the pattern if the edits were more frequent though. (Wikiscanner seems to be down) Ronk01 talk 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This entire range is DoD. Interesting to browse through it. I wonder, does internet traffic from Afghanistan get routed through a US ISP? NickCT (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)