It's just throwing out wiki articles and stating "ah because the facts here don't line up with my extreme right wing / conspiratorial values it must be liberal bias!"
example from blog :
- The first article I thought to look at had some pretty egregious instances of bias: the Jesus article. It simply asserts, again in its own voice, that “the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.”
What is bias about that? That is the exact opposite of bias simply stating the facts as determined though scientific process.
or another example:
- The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject.
There is information on both of those pages about the minority position, but it is limited because the scientific community is pretty much in agreement on the science behind those topic. Do we need to make sure half the article on the earth is dedicated to flat earth theory to insure there is no extreme liberal globe shaped earth bias?
It's just throwing out wiki articles and stating "ah because the facts here don't line up with my extreme right wing / conspiratorial values it must be liberal bias!"
example from blog : - The first article I thought to look at had some pretty egregious instances of bias: the Jesus article. It simply asserts, again in its own voice, that “the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.”
What is bias about that? That is the exact opposite of bias simply stating the facts as determined though scientific process.
or another example: - The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject.
There is information on both of those pages about the minority position, but it is limited because the scientific community is pretty much in agreement on the science behind those topic. Do we need to make sure half the article on the earth is dedicated to flat earth theory to insure there is no extreme liberal globe shaped earth bias?