Wikipedia bias (again)

24 Replies, 1793 Views

I know that we are all aware of this but I felt the need to rant.

I had been scanning through a few threads here and one mentioned Michael Behe. It is a long time since I've read anything by him or his colleague, Stephen C. Meyer, so I decided to see what they are up to these days. First stop was Wikipedia and this aroused all those old angry reactions to the pejorative terms and outright bias on the part of the Wikipedia editors (no doubt helped with their wording by the Wikipedia Gestapo of Susan Gerbic).


Quote:Michael J. Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).



Quote:Stephen C. Meyer (/ˈmaɪ.ər/; born 1958) is an American author and former educator. He is an advocate of intelligent design, a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God, presented with the claim that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory"


At least Michael Shermer has the good grace to debate Meyer with a degree of respect (as he does with the likes of Deepak Chopra).

https://youtu.be/On-4lOWuWQQ
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.
Freeman Dyson
[-] The following 4 users Like Kamarling's post:
  • David001, Larry, Raimo, Brian
(2021-12-25, 01:26 PM)Brian Wrote: But my biases are wholly appropriate whereas other people's are just biased.

Exactly.

It’s just people being people, we appear to allow some nasty things to go unchallenged when it’s our pov that’s being pushed but get enraged when the biases work against us.
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise
[-] The following 1 user Likes Stan Woolley's post:
  • Brian
(2021-12-25, 01:26 PM)Brian Wrote: But my biases are wholly appropriate whereas other people's are just biased.

My post was relevant to another thread in which Behe was mentioned (as I explained already). It is not a matter of bias on the part of members of this forum, the post was to highlight a particular and egregious use of pejorative language by biased Wikipedia editors. If others have other examples, they should feel free to mention them but I'm not going to search through Wikipedia to find them in some futile attempt at balance.

By the way, Brian, I am replying to you because you quoted a reply. It may seem petty but that person is on ignore so I only see the replies if they are quoted (and so it shall remain).
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.
Freeman Dyson
[-] The following 1 user Likes Kamarling's post:
  • Obiwan
(2021-12-25, 08:42 PM)Kamarling Wrote: My post was relevant to another thread in which Behe was mentioned (as I explained already). It is not a matter of bias on the part of members of this forum, the post was to highlight a particular and egregious use of pejorative language by biased Wikipedia editors. If others have other examples, they should feel free to mention them but I'm not going to search through Wikipedia to find them in some futile attempt at balance.

By the way, Brian, I am replying to you because you quoted a reply. It may seem petty but that person is on ignore so I only see the replies if they are quoted (and so it shall remain).

Ah, OK.  Well my post was in no way a refute of your position.  The language used is clearly inappropriate for a site purporting to pragmatically give factual information.  I haven't seen such bias on the other side on Wiki but I have seen plenty on Youtube and other sites.  Wiki has an extra responsibility though because it is not supposed to be opinion based.
(This post was last modified: 2021-12-26, 09:07 AM by Brian.)
(2021-12-26, 10:11 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: PSI is presently not seen as acceptable to the mainstream. This will surely change over time,  i
Hope springs eternal in this one
(2021-12-26, 05:59 PM)Steve001 Wrote: Hope springs eternal in this one

Can't say I like what you wrote but sadly I have to agree. 

EDIT:  I wrote this under the impression that Steve was referring to the principle but having re-read it I think he may have been referring to Kamarling, in which case I retract my agreement.
(This post was last modified: 2021-12-27, 10:19 AM by Brian.)
[-] The following 1 user Likes Brian's post:
  • Steve001
(2021-12-26, 05:59 PM)Steve001 Wrote: Hope springs eternal in this one

I may have to edit my subsequent post.  Were you referring to the poster or the principle?  I had no wish to knock Kamarling.
(2021-12-27, 10:17 AM)Brian Wrote: I may have to edit my subsequent post.  Were you referring to the poster or the principle?  I had no wish to knock Kamarling.
See who I quoted.
COVID-related posts moved to a new thread in the opt-in Political Discussions forum:

Bias against COVID-skeptical scientists [split from Wikipedia bias (again)]
(2021-12-28, 02:17 AM)Laird Wrote: COVID-related posts moved to a new thread in the opt-in Political Discussions forum:



Thanks to Kamarling and the rest of the moderation team for so aptly making one of the important points for me.
Oh my God, I hate all this.   Surprise

  • View a Printable Version
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)