Tags: How Do You Start A Business PlanShakespeare Merchant Of Venice EssaysCollegeconfidential EssaySynopsis Of EssayBach Essay His Life MusicOrder Copy ThesisGreat Business Plan ExamplesHabitual Problem SolvingEssay Word Count RulesHow To Write Research Objectives For Research Proposal
This applies to both what you say and how you say it.” There is obviously a major conflict of interest present if people are commonly making edits to Wikipedia for ideological reasons, which is exactly the opposite of Wikipedia’s stated policy of neutrality.Predictably, the result is that bias is rife within the articles on the site.Since Wikipedia is essentially mob-rule applied to encyclopedia content, the prevailing view of the mob is going to determine the bias of the articles.
Probably largely younger people, for starters, and largely Westerners, since the internet is originally a product of the West and is still dominated largely by the West.
It turns out my predictions were right on the money.
It is viewed by professional biologists as unscholarly, and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.” The level of bias and misrepresentation here is almost beyond words.
It is sad that this is coming from what may be the internet’s most-used source of information, but this is the reality we must face in the 21 century.
But here’s the catch: anyone can also revert any changes made by another editor.
This means ultimately that articles represent a ‘consensus’.Wikipedia is rife with overt falsehoods and bias against biblical creationists.It is serving to reinforce this bias across the world as Wikipedia continues to see broader and broader application.When you consider who “the mob” is on Wikipedia, it is that subset of people who have access to the internet, know about Wikipedia and care enough about it to make changes on it—and additionally have the technical expertise to do so (since modifying Wikipedia is a bit like using programming language). Come to think of it, that is a pretty specialized group, isn’t it?And would we expect that particular group to fit into any categories?This would be bad enough in itself, since we know that truth is not decided by majority vote, and ‘consensus science’ is anti-science.But it is worse than it seems on the surface, since most Wikipedia articles are not being watched or edited by a very large number of people.A 2010 study on Wikipedia editors shows that the greatest number of editors are in the USA (20%), followed by Germany (12%) and Russia (7%).The only non-Western country in the top 10 was India (3%), which of course also has a strong Western influence due to the history of British colonialism there. The trend among younger people in the USA is also towards the acceptance of Darwinism and rejection of biblical creation according to a Pew Research Center report (according to one reporter, “ …The wording here implies there is a total lack of any professional scientists who support and engage in creation science—a claim which is flat out wrong.According to Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality, “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias.