Bias on Wikipedia?
by KrauzeWikipedia is a popular source of information, with articles written by voluntary authors all over the world, motivated only by their desire to share their knowledge with the rest of us. That's the ideal, at least. But as DaveScot shows in his post, "Wikipedia Hatchet Jobs on ID Leaders", a small group of intellectual thugs are vandalizing Wikipedia, squashing any attempt to correct articles with an anti-ID bias. For example, the article on Francis Beckwith (who has argued for the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design) contains false claims about his views, implying that he's lying about them. Any attempts to correct it, even from Beckwith himself, have been deleted.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Wikipedia's credibility problems are well known:
http://www.wired.com/news/cult...
The problem of experts being given the shaft is widespread. I don't think Beckwith should worry about it too much. To survive Wiki will eventually do something about it, although I do like to annoy them when I'm bored.
Comment by Guts — November 30, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
November 30th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
I like how on Dembski's wikipedia page how they pretty much make him out to seem like the most dishonest man to exist; then, at the end of the article on him there's a link for his debate with Shermer and it refers to Shermer as a "celebrated skeptic". That was classic!
Comment by Doug — November 30, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
December 1st, 2006 at 1:15 pm
I find it amusing that Francis Beckwith gets a larger article at Wikipedia than other philosophers one might consider at least as important — say, Descartes. Beckwith gets more space than Everett Dirksen, more than almost every U.S. Senator, more than most.
It looks like a vanity post. And in that length, your claim is that Beckwith's friends can't get enough stuff in to make it at least fair? I don't think it's fairness you're looking for.
Comment by edarrell — December 1, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
December 1st, 2006 at 3:34 pm
This comment is just irrational considering the point of the article. If his views are being misrepresented then they are being misrepresented…. regardless of the length of the article.
You tell me, if it's not fairness that's being requested then what is it? Do you think there would be an issue if his views were being represented correctly but the length of the entry was shorter than those of U.S. senators?
Comment by Doug — December 1, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
December 1st, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Wrong.
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
December 1st, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Wiki is a place where anyone after acquiring an account (or even without it) can jump in and directly start to edit articles. When a controversial topic is discussed, an Edit War will become inevitable. When it comes to ID & Darwinian Evolution topics, if you are on ID side, it's very likely for you to be outnumbered by ID opponents and eventually loose the Edit War. Regardless of the truth, the winner is the side who is successful in repressing the other. Most of the articles about ID leaders are full of nonsense which directly violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy.
Fred Hoyle the British astronomer was one the most admired and genius scientists of the 20th century. Can you believe that they shamelessly categorized him under Pseudoscience?! Recently someone reverted it, but it doesn't mean that such a nonsense won't happen again.
FeloniousMonk and JoshuaZ are administrators. These two admins and their mob form the "Darwinist Police" branch of the Wikipedia. They frequently violate the NPOV policy to impose their biased views.
Take a look at the following statement which is for Behe:
"Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible."
In reality while he was under oath, Behe never admitted such a thing. They're putting these words in his mouth. The above statement directly defies the NPOV policy. I tried to discuss this in detail and explain why the above statement violates the NPOV policy of the Wikipedia. However soon I realized that I'm wasting my time and these guys (including Admins) are insistent in misusing the Wikipedia to spread their own views.
Comment by Farshad — December 1, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:17 pm
In response to Ed, a good friend included a huge bio of me on Wikipedia so that we can shrink the bulls*** by contrast. My thinking was that there is much about my intellectual pilgrimage that I know that nobody else does. So, if I can just overwhelm the article with that material–since it gives a fuller picture of my own reflections–the exaggerated emphasis on certain portions of my writings of which certain people have an ax to grind would not stand out.
Ed, you are absolutely right that given what I have accomplished I do not deserve that many words. It is laughable, I fully concede. But given the fanaticism of certain people, I had to be creative in defending my integrity.
Comment by fbeckwith — December 3, 2006 @ 11:17 pm