Talk:Ideological bias on Knowledge/Archive 2

2642:

develop). The problem is the gender article (the only thing the WMF seems to actually care about discussing), which is developed enough that if not artfully cropped, begs us to ask why we don't summarize and retain the fork, which if we do, means that the other two will probably eventually be forked too once more developed, which means we're really just kicking the can down the road and haven't actually solved anything with all the work it would take to do the merge. But I expect that attempting to crop down the gender article is mostly just going to piss off a lot of people who are married to the issue, and the only way to make everybody happy would be to retain the fork. So there we are.

1070:

Atanasov is just pulling directly from article categories. And 118 respondents is perfectly fine. They're only looking at two variables in their validation, and a 0.35 correlation is acceptable for what they're doing with it. Not perfect, but enough to scale up fairly reliably to several thousand articles and get meaningful results. That respondents are anonymous is neither here nor there, because for any similar survey, even one administered in person, respondents would still be anonymous. So that changes nothing methodologically. In fact, the opposite; it would be problematic methodologically if they

1081:. So yeah. It definitely exists, and seems to do a fairly decent job of estimating human article assessment. So, 62.9% chance of correctly predicting the assessment, and 90.7% chance of predicting the assessment within one level. Not surprisingly, this is least effective at rating C and B level articles, probably because we are ourselves horribly inconsistent in human ratings at these levels. So if you discount those (which IMO they should have done) the accuracy actually goes up quite a bit. But not bad really, and again, perfectly acceptable when you're scaling up to about 50k articles. 125:, the Google employee sacked for sending an anti-diversity memo at Google, as a supporting source for the section on "The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds". I think this is inappropriate. Unlike the other sources cited, Damore is not an expert in this field, but rather someone with a grievance. It also mentions the academic work and Knowledge only in passing, and only in order to advance a novel synthesis flattering to Damore's agenda. In fact, including Damore weakens the section because any reader familiar with Damore's well known axe-grinding is likely to discount it. This is an op-ed in 3155:. Those arguing that there is a problem with Knowledge's bias, and also demanding that those objecting to the article should be helping to globalise it, tend to use "liberal" to describe political positions they don't like, including the alleged bias of Knowledge. We therefore have the ridiculous situation of those wanting it globalised using a very American word. (As a pejorative too, of course.) Until a better, non-ambiguous word is used by the whiners to describe the bias they allege exists, we really cannot get very far. PS: I don't have any suggestions. (But 1614:" Did you actually read what I wrote? My point is that those who don't perceive a problem don't write about the problem they don't see. The inherent nature of this issue is that, while the vast majority of people are happy with Knowledge's balance, the tiny minority who aren't make a big fuss about their dissatisfaction. Those who a happy don't make such a fuss. "Reliable" sources about the balance are rare, because nobody can be bothered. That is the core problem with this article. It's an article for whiners to complain. 1261:

use Forbes.com comments on it ? The Guardian mentions 'liberal bias', and co-founder Larry Sanger is reported, studies from Kellog.northwestern.edu, bbr.org, etcetera. Then there's complainants - persons or organizations -- or partisan objectors such as heartland.org, breitbart.com that could be mentioned but need some RS which makes note and/or reviews their complaints. And not that it's citeable, but WP gets poked at by both sides c'pedia and rationalwiki; or odd commentators writing at places like cracked.com.

1190:. It's not exactly an impressive article, but it says "Public opinion consists of the desires, wants, and thinking of the majority of the people; it is the collective opinion of the people of a society or state on an issue or problem." You might not agree with that definition, but certainly most of us would expect a public opinion section to have something in it about the views of the "public", eg popular perceptions. It doesn't. It has the views of two conservative authors, an anti-evolution group and a professor. 2877:, Knowledge policy does not say that articles should emphasize any particular country, so that is as you say a straw man argument. But your reply is evasive. What do you mean by neutrality? Does it mean that articles should provide equal weight with what you believe and what reliable sources say? The problem with that approach is that world views are not binary, but there is a wide range of opinions and the political spectrum is broader than Hilary Clinton and Steve Bannon. 2748:. We shouldn't be attempting to advance the bias of sources, but utilize them to document in a neutral way what is stated in them. Otherwise, since most news sources lean to the left on the American political spectrum, if we were to advance those biases, everything that uses those sources would also take on a left leaning bias, and thus not be neutral, thus advancing the sometimes stated claim "Reality has a well-known liberal bias"-S. Colbert.-- 31: 1344:, verify that there is? Has the topic received significant coverage? If it has why was there a concerted effort to delete the article? Does the subject of this article fall under the scope of an existing article, and if so which article(s)? If it does fall under the scope of existing articles, would merging and redirecting this article into an existing article, make that article violate 1488:. If you want to suggest a move of all three to "X balance on Knowledge", you can try. I think people will tell you that's limiting. It would force the articles to be about the demographics only, not the bias that may exist as a result of the demographics. These articles are all about public perception of Knowledge as documented in external sources, not internal counts. -- 2322:

we do have such evidence. Even if there was evidence of no bias, the title would still be accurate. I think you are reading too much into it. Its "on Knowledge" not "of Knowledge" - so it doesn't make a statement about Knowledge as a whole, but rightly covers evidence of certain bias in some places on Knowledge. --

747:

self-help articles they use to pad their very imperfect and casual "best colleges" lists or the other similar publications -- Best Hospitals, Best High Schools, Best Cruise Lines, Used Cars, Veterinarians, etc. -- under that imprint. Your arguments for this source, although insistent, are facile and mistaken.

3603:

The relevant bit for us is that across 251 articles on current and former US senators, political affiliation was not found to be a significant mediating factor in the treatment of either positive or negative information, regardless of whether the information was cited. Their entire design is aimed at

3215:

Nah. You're still pushing the conservative American view, and don't even realise it. I wish we could get you to leave America and see the world as others see it. Other places may pay lip service to religions that have creation stories, but they don't build arks that will never float to prove one once

3050:

if you are worried about that, otherwise what you are doing comes under what you call whining. As to the sources being biased, Knowledge seems to cope with that sort of problem quite well elsewhere without deleting articles. And anyway as far as I can see there are good secondary sources that discuss

2973:

I hope you're not implying that anyone contributing here is being a jerk. That would definitely breach Knowledge policy. And perhaps you missed my comment about the sources potentially available for this article. They cannot be balanced, because their goal will inevitably be to prove that there IS an

2826:

Knowledge policy says that views must be presented proportionately according to their coverage in reliable sources. Of course that would means that if reliable sources have a predominately liberal capitalist pro-science outlook (what RCLC calls left-wing), then Knowledge will provide more coverage to

2641:

I would be fine with a grand merge into one massive article. This and race are both pretty anemic (not in small part because the WMF have chosen not to collect data on either, and because there are entirely more people here trying to argue, delete, remove and repurpose than there are people trying to

2507:

I was asked to respond to what was written. And as to you I really do not appreciate you assuming I'm trying to push some point of view or that doing so is a correct thing to do. I think the straightforward answer to the original query is that it is based on the commonname and other similar titles in

2057:

The current version includes the word "American" at the beginning and end of the same sentence. I believe the one in the quote is enough to explain context to the reader, so the using both is redundant and represents poor writing style. Recommend dropping the opening "American" and leave the quote as

1851:

In your mind. The relevance of Conservapedia's bias when discussing their accusations of bias seems obvious to me. But, you know, feel free to suggest better wording. Also: you are in a minority of one pretty much all the time with this article, so accusing everybody else of failing to collaborate is

1590:

that should be included (if that can be verified by reliable sources), but what can be verified of the perception of bias, or actual bias, shouldn't be excluded because of other perception that it is "very balanced". Neither side should be excluded, nor should either POV be attacked, that is not what

771:

radically takes context away from the second sentence in the quote. In the section this appears, the topic is concern about the reliability of articles due to possible bias, and Kehm is saying essentially not to use the articles as is, but to use the citations as starting point. This hack of an edit

726:

I did. I checked the archives and all mentions of U.S. News & World Report (and Best Colleges) are regarded highly as reliable sources. In this case, we have the backing if tertiary sources. I am restoring the source and content, and if you feel you can make the case, feel free yourself to bring

3193:

We have academic studies which demonstrate a political bias, especially the earliest years of Knowledge, so at least some of the criticism has proven merit. If there is a view that might be considered "FRINGE", it'd be those that claim bias doesn't or didn't exist. I think we need to tread carefully

2591:

Partisanship, political, and ideological all work. "Neutrality" would be nearly deletion through subject change. It would almost completely change the scope of the article. That might work in a way that's logically consistent if this, the gender and race articles were merged into one, but I doubt if

2271:

It lets the article address the issue of whether or not Knowledge is neutral, rather than proclaiming in the title that it is not. Do informed people say that Knowledge is biased because it favors consensus opinion on climate change, the place of Obama's birth and whether or not the moon landing was

1874:

Just you. I tagged problem text to gain input. I have suggested other wording for Conservapedia coverage (in prior sections you've blanked) but I never claim I have the "best" or "right" version of anything. I have tried a lot of things to get you to fairly collaborate. In particular, I've asked you

1097:

So yeah. There's nothing inherently problematic about the study. It's findings seem to be pretty well in line with Greenstein's 2017 piece. The bit about semantic and lexical diversity is probably a little to esoteric for WP. The finding that polarization is related to article quality seems fine and

2490:

What you see is really not the point. The only way to promote your view is to respond directly to the policy-based objections that have been presented repeatedly and in detail on this page. You may prevail, you may not, but unresponsive complaints are pointless. Please review the question that has

2321:

doesn't seem to have the same level of evidence. Its sources are mostly mainstream news articles, not academic. If the name of that article is fine, in that the title is not seen as implying a bias even though there is no robust evidence, then I don't see what the problem if this one is considering

1971:

I understand all these good points. I just think it may appear to readers that we’re looking for a reason to document the absurdity of the site in more than one article due to their criticism of WP. We generally focus on fringe sites in articles about them instead of letting the fringe views spread

1683:

complained that "Knowledge articles often use British spelling instead of American English" and "facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored". Conservapedia makes extravagant claims of bias on Knowledge, many of which are contradicted by its own articles. Conservapedia has

1260:

p.s. Unclear where to go though. Seems a lot of articles still to draw from -- everyone seems to say yes WP is biased or inept or etcetera, but it is not clear whether the section is going for casual RS articles or that direct complaintees exist or what. The Zhu study is mentioned, but could this

1092:

I dunno. The rest of the paragraph is about explaining this. But yeah. It was observational and not experimental. If this is being interpreted to mean that "we ignored anyone who didn't fit what we wanted to find" then that's not the correct interpretation of what they're saying. Fact of the matter

2475:

What I see you writing is you saying the person who started the article is engaged in attacking Knowledge and asserting that writing it is wrong because the people who would write such stuff are biased. That is what I wrote about. Knowledge does not need your protection. Productive in Knowledge is

2126:

on Google Scholar with "Knowledge" in the title alone. You may say its only "whiners" that write about bias... and I'll counter that by saying academics study Knowledge not because they are "whiners" but because they are simply curious. The studies in this article were designed to investigate -if-

2107:

Please read my comment again. I am assigning a label to a subset of people from one nation, not all of them, and will not apologise for that. You have clearly ignored or failed to comprehend my earlier comments about sourcing for my position. It's only the whiners who tend to bother to write about

1952:

Yes, we're not citing Conservapedia, we are highlighting Conservapedia as a prominent response to the claimed bias of Knowledge, and the thinking of those who make such claims. I'm guessing that most people are probably happy that we are biased in favour of empirically verified fact, but there are

1395:

There is no such thing as US Knowledge. This is the English language Knowledge. Anyone anywhere on earth who is competent in English can contribute. (And we do.) It is global. Perhaps the fact that you see it as the US Knowledge is what's really at the core of your concerns about its alleged bias.

821:

that political partisans would contribute more to articles consistent with their partisanship" #"We measure editors' alignments by the fraction of bytes they contribute to "Conservative" versus "Liberal" articles on the English-language Knowledge, ..." - Bad assumption Shih, Teplitskiy, Duede, and

169:

making it clear this is an article and Damore is a guest writer in the series. None of Damore's opinions are used in conjunction with this reference. Even if they were (in a different article/situation), it would be entirely appropriate because the magazine is a reliable secondary source. The only

3364:

Yes, it's possible to use both in a neutral way, but from afar, I rarely see the word "liberal" used as anything but a pejorative in the US. And the problem with using it as a pejorative is that there is nothing inherent about the word that should have led to that. "Conservative" should be just a

3174:

That’s a potential issue with this article: it’s discussing complaints from the American right that Knowledge has a bias towards a position that in most of the English-speaking world is regarded as centrist, or even centre-right, and people from positions outside the mainstream (e.g. creationism)

2992:

I don’t think GMG was saying that. I still occasionally use the term arcane about the guidelines when welcoming new editors. But, I agree that once you understand the main principles, the guidelines all fall into place and GMG’s reduction to two general concepts is not as simplistic as it sounds.

1069:

Actually not a bad assumption, and it's not really an assumption once it's validated. They are using a different metric than Greenstein et al. Greenstein is referring to the prior linguistic slant of the article, not the topic category. Atanasov et al is referring to article subject, not content.

746:

USNWR the news magazine/website is not the same as the guide series from the same publisher. Your search for the words US News and World Reports at RSN simply ignores the information I've provided above. No knowledgeable reader or researcher confuses the journalism of the magazine with the how-to

523:

is a popular, not a heavyweight source. Third, Vox Day is a fringe figure not known for any expertise in analysing bias, or even for his failed career as a minor sci-fi-author, but rather for neo-Nazi apologia, male supremacism and other less-than-stellar characteristics. Nothing about this story

2090:

First, I have never stated here what country I am from, nor my political leanings, so keep your assumptions to yourself. For someone concerned with global problems, you sure are quick to assign nationalistic labels. Second, there is a way to get your view into the article: find a reliable source

1909:

Frankly, I don’t understand why we would include any mention of Conservapedia. Forget the fact that it’s often hilariously goofy and assume it was actually a good faith attempt at presenting a conservative POV. It would still be a wiki, and wikis, including Knowledge, are not RS. Unless they are

1522:

Right from the start my argument has been that that won't be an easy task. Only those unhappy with it, almost exclusively conservative Americans, write about it. People who don't don't perceive a bias in something don't even think about there being anything worth writing about. This just another

1088:

This appears to be a typo, and an apparent reference to their 49,000 article size sample. By editorial teams, they appear to be speaking about sets of editors on articles, since they're analyzed at the level of distinct-group-per-article. As in, all those of us who have edited and discussed this

833:

is a system designed to help automate critical wiki-work – for example, vandalism detection and removal. I'm going to make a bold assertion that nowhere in the WMF sphere of projects is there an automated tool that can accurately or consistently rate article quality, except in the very narrowest

3333:

Inevitably. Just as American liberals (or British Labour) use “Conservative” and “Right-wing” as negatives. Any value system uses its values as labels for ‘good’, and other values are ‘bad’. But these are also neutral and COMMONNAME labels, used by all sides, and NPOV guidance to present all

3258:

Well Liberal does have WEIGHT in RS but feel free to propose something else or additional. Perhaps say "American Liberal" for the ideological bias group ? Or perhaps list multiple ideological biases it has been identified with ? There does seem to be a perhaps general American biases for

3450:

as well as 151 articles on deceased or retired senators. They concluded there was a "clear, systematic bias" in favor of the inclusion of positive facts and the removal of negative facts, but that this was not moderated by the political party of the senator. They also found that this bias was

2859:

Also advancing the bias of sources is not neutral. I am sure no one would want that done for sources which have a bias right of center, thus no one should want that done for sources which have a bias left of center. Understandably each nation has a different center, as others have pointed out

1924:

I think it's worth including a paragraph about Conservapedia and the content as written is a good start. It was created specifically as a response to perceived liberal bias on Knowledge. There's no benefit to tagging it when there is an active "editing team" right here to address any issues.-

2898:

I am not an expert on Knowledge policies. I refuse to use them to pseudo-win an ideological argument. What I will again do here is present the simple and obvious fact that only people who think Knowledge is biased will write about the subject. Those who neither notice not think about bias in

3700:- "So the study found... no ideological bias. Wait, what?". Even a study which finds no bias would be on-topic for this article. My main question above was about where the section might best be presented. Even if moved to Reliability, it might be worth leaving one-line pointer from here. -- 2937:

It's called logic. Note my comment that I am not appealing to Knowledge's arcane policies here.My aim is to build a quality encyclopaedia. Having articles that are nothing more than platforms for the thoughts of right wing whiners does not help. (The same would apply to left wing whiners.)

624:

start chilling a bit on the undo button? I am very open to addressing concerns, but none of this has such urgency. Use inline tags, use clear comments, and I will work with you. I'll even research a position or point you think we need more of. But just blanking things is backtracking. --

1006:

the content at hand in that section - no secondary source covers what the study encompasses. Heterodox and Damore are secondary for verification of acceptance of the study's value. As more scholarship is published citing it or other secondary sources are found, the section will evolve.

3584:

I found a secondary source for study (which I didn't find when I was first considering this same study for the article). After reading The Boston Globe coverage and re-reading the study, I don't see a strong case for inclusion here. It seems quite apt for (and is already mentioned in)

129:, which also raises red flags given the praise heaped on that website by anti-diversity activists like Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson. It's a fringe view by someone with a very obvious vested interest, it lacks academic rigour, and the source lacks the solidity of reputation of a 1640:

But those for whom the idea that Knowledge is biased doesn't even cross their minds don't bother writing about the matter. Can you see the problem of achieving balance in that environment? This whole article is simply a platform for conservatives to attack Knowledge. Not a good look.

642:

is not a work of journalism. It's a self-help/guidebook with more or less arbitrary, casual and corrigible lists, sort of like the pre-season football rankings for all the teams. It is not RS for the assertions I reverted. Find a solid source for this kind of thing, if one exists.

1240:-- I've BOLDly retitled it "Other Reports of Ideological Bias". That seems awkward but a better fit for the section content. If there is somewhere a public opinion about WP over ideological basis then feel free to make a new section and put it there. Cheers. 1839:" - the concerns are valid. You should just remove them as you address the concerns, like that dead link I flagged. Your sense of urgency is really impeding collaboration... maybe wait a bit and let someone else take a look at the tags and suggest changes? -- 1630:

WP:NPOV is very clear about inclusion of material: "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Translation: if enough whiners get their whining published in RS then we can include it. Knowledge is WP:NOTCENSORED.–

1084:

I'm...not sure I understand what the problem with #3 is. That's...one of the core questions they're trying to answer. I don't see why it's inherently problematic, give the literature they review, we should expect that more diverse groups make higher quality

2899:

Knowledge as they read articles will not be motivated to write about it. Given that reality, what is to be gained by building an article around sources from the tiny minority of people from the right who don't like Knowledge's inevitable centrist position?

164:

is being used here simply as a fallback because obviously this does not violate any of our sourcing guidelines. This is not an "op-ed" as characterized - no words to that effect appear on the source, and indeed the source contradicts that by including this

3202:

gives some guidance not to describe them as outside the mainstream, but as religious/political movements. I think the Conservapedia item as of right now does it well, as the reactions are sourced to scientists, not described in terms of mainstream or not.

303:

It's not about his being controversial , it's about his being wrong, and about him having a very obvious dog in the fight. Opinion pieces by obvious partisans with no independent analysis are routinely, and for excellent reasons, excluded from Knowledge.

239:

Well, you can say that, and then people can read my reply. Your rationale is just casting aspersions about the author, which can be ignored. It is the publication which is the source, not the author, and the publication has no issues of reliability. --

252:

It's the publication, the author, whatever evidence there may be about the quality of the specific article, and our analysis of that information together. Ignoring that, especiallly while claiming that other editors opinions can be ignored, looks like

1875:

to stop blanking sections and instead use inline tags. And now I've asked you to respect the tags I use and leave them in longer so we can get input. Maybe you missed the "You believe it is necessary for you to repeatedly revert the article" line at

884:

My only real problem with that is I would really like to see a secondary source which discusses it. Otherwise it is a primary source. As to methodology I would leave that up to the secondary source to complain about rather than editors here doing OR.

2432:

Think of it as 'ideological bias in Edubook' or some other made up name like that and you'll see what you say has no basis in fact. You are trying to be some warrior defending the good name of Knowledge. That is not needed and is counterproductive.

2291:. The name attracts such people, not a healthy situation. I see the name itself as an insult to the vast majority of editors who work in a good faith, balanced way. I would support an RfC to change the name, but would expect a giant manure fight. 3676:

just as firmly among the retired. What we can actually see from this study is that Wikipedians scrutinise political biographies more closely and apply more robust standards when there is a risk of skewing an election result. Regardless of party.

979:"Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content." 2476:

writing good articles on notable topics. It scraped past a deletion debate. Can we go past the deletion debate till the next deletion discussion I'm sure you'll be glad to start after some decent time has been given for it to develop thanks.

3451:

primarily related to whether a politician was currently active, and found no difference among retired living, and retired deceased individuals, indicating the effect is not explained by Knowledge's policies on biographies of living persons.

2539:

Propose one or give some ideas from which a name might come then. What would a person look for? How have people referred to the topic? What kind of decision have editors on Knowledge come to in similar circumstances? That is the basis of

1671:

because it seems to me to be a very useful illustration of the motives of the more vociferous critics, and it explains the difference between the perceived bias among American conservatives and the objective finding that bias is limited.

3712:

A study that finds no bias, just as a study that finds slight bias, strong bias, mixed nuanced bias, or...even one that reached no conclusion at all and simply recommended further research, would still a finding relevant to the topic of

1382:

EN Knowledge, and so its judged by US political standards. Its reliably-sourced, and as long as we explain those studies in that context, its the best we can do. Help is appreciated finding other studies in other languages/regions. --

2705:

since “neutrality” seems also a prejudiced title, and a different topic, I suggest the phrase scholarly sources, reviewers, and complaints all speak of possible “bias”, not possible “neutrality”. Google it yourself and see . Cheers

1446:- are you going to claim I am pushing the cyborg POV too? Its time to stop accusing me of things you are only guessing at. Help write this article, provide feedback on the article, or depart. I am not interested in your continued 1363:

By American standards, Knowledge may appear left wing. By global standards it generally doesn't. Knowledge is a global encyclopaedia. A lot of American editors seem unable to see that difference. (Or they are pushing their POV?)

1098:

relevant, as is the finding that this effect can be seen even in non-political articles. Also that mentions of NPOV, OR, and NOR are most frequently cited and significantly correlated with polarization could be worth mentioning.

3279:" is common in the sources, because they are an appallingly biased collection of sources. Almost all (maybe all?) from American conservatives, the only people who can be bothered writing about this. That simply proves my point. 2391:

Could editors here just stop taking the title personally thanks. Just because it says 'Knowledge' in the title does not mean it has to be treated any different from anything else. Trying to deal with it any different is against

844:"We observed only the behavior of those editors who voluntarily cooperated with others of contrary politics to produce articles of higher quality, or those who avoided such collaborations and produced lower quality articles." - 2091:

which agrees with you. I have yet to see a study that confirms any sort of systemic conservative bias on Knowledge - if I had, it'd be in here. And if you find anything about a US-centric bias, then maybe you can add it to

2075:

a global problem for Knowledge. It is a problem for conservative, US-centric editors. This is obvious to non-American editors, and to many Americans, I wish there was a decent way to get that simple fact into the article.

2286:

I'm right with you on this TFC. The current name is clearly one that appealed to the article's creator, someone who believes Knowledge is biased, and he has picked up a few followers along the way, all agreeing with that

3589:

since its about what facts are retained in articles from a positive/negative perspective, but doesn't fit as strong in the core focus of this article - ideological bias. I'd suggest moving the section over to there. --

2740:

This is not an attack on Knowledge. Sometimes the best way to improve things is to first understand flaws which things claim to have. Knowledge is a community of people, people are fallible, therefore it will never be

2360:

If that's the best the creator of the article can come up with, it doesn't have much going for it. This is not meant as an insult to that person. It's meant to highlight how indefensible the title of this article is.

840:

According to the Heterodox Academy, "Shih et al. studied the performance of 400,000 Knowledge editorial teams." - I don't even see that number in the study, nor is it clear where they would even find 400,000 editorial

355:

We discuss forks created by those with obvious fringe agendas who accuse Knowledge of bias (e.g. Conservapedia). One example that has been in and out a few times is Infogalactic. This was created by alt-right troll

3365:

neutral word. It's easy to use it that way. "Liberal", literally and historically meaning generous or open minded, has actually been given a new meaning by the millions of Americans who use it as a pejorative. It's

2127:

bias exists... not because professors just want to "whine" about it. Maybe the reason you have to repeat yourself or claim no one is listening is because you are simply characterizing this topic incorrectly. --

3639:

I mean, it's a peer reviewed paper by a doctoral student at UC Berkeley and a professor at Yale, along with a professor at Warwick, published by the Public Library of Science, but other than that yeah I guess.

3259:

Dualism, Moralising, and Absolutism -- that matters are usually viewed as two-sided and must be absolutely good or absolutely evil. I think there have been mentions of Scientism or Atheism as well. Cheers

502:

We are not using them as proof of bias, but they are reliable to say that Infogalactic was launched due to Vox Day's claim of bias - specious or not, that's not for us to decide when evaluating the sources. --

2524:

The article title makes no more sense to me than moving the Pizzagate article to “Pedophilia at the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria”. The title, as it stands, is biased itself. What’s wrong with a neutral title?

3672:. All sitting politicians' biographies have a higher bar to inclusion of negative rather than positive information, and this ceases after retirement. That's an interesting nugget - we should be policing 2576:

where this comes under partisanship rather than neutrality, but the sources don't say partisan either, they say political and bias and ideology. Have a look at the references in the article for yourself

1910:

totally controlled by a tiny group, they aren’t even RS for presenting their own opinions since they are crowd-edited. Having said that, if it is to be included, I entirely agree with JzG’s position.

1442: 1500:

Netoholic did not write an article on the balance of Knowledge because he doesn't think Knowledge is balanced, as his edit history clearly shows. It's up tot he rest of us to wrestle it from his

2108:

Knowledge alleged bias. Those who don't perceive a bias do not think of there being a problem, so they tend not to write about that, to them, non-existent problem. Do you understand that point?

2613:

Yes, I was just thinking a bit more on this and I agree, neutrality is just too wide, it would encroach on too many sections of Criticism of Knowledge rather than just one topic under it.

1667:

Conservapedia is probably the most widely discussed example of criticism of Knowledge's "liberal bias". In my view that criticism is good evidence to the contrary. I added a short para in

3046:

I get that your opinion is that it is a biased title and there are no unbiased sources. The article has passed AfD for the moment, think of a better title that is in conformity with

2020:

Nope. Evidence here suggests yo are the only one who disputes these things. Feel free to raise specific concerns here and suggest better wording, but tag-bombing is disruptive.

2071:

If you must, but have you realised yet how significant it is that you and all the other whiners are among the less than 5% of the world's population that are American? This is

550:

attacks? I haven't removed them in the above comment only because I don't feel like getting into that revert war... but they are incredibly inappropriate and lack decorum. --

3625:

This appears to be a paper written three years ago by a person who is still a student. It has four citations including blog.wikimedia. Doesn’t seem like a very good source.

2334:

You know what I think about the inevitable bias in the sources. Only whiners will write about this topic. Convince me the title is not insulting to most Knowledge editors.

1747: 2153:

Fascinating. When you add bias to the Google Scholar search it goes down from 12,400 results to 35, and you find that pretty much every study ever written on the supposed

3463:

In this context, the example of a negative fact give is an accusation of a person lying, while the example of a positive fact given is a person donating money to charity.

1093:

is you really can't do an experimental design in a way that you might if there were three or four alternative equally consumed and contributed to Knowledge-like projects.

687: 2784:

If the entire contents of this article were "There is no bias found on Knowledge" followed by fifty citations, the current title would still be neutral and correct. --

3175:

complaining that Knowledge has a bias towards the mainstream position. This is a feature of Knowledge, not a bug, and if these complaints are reported here then, per

1218: 837:"Article quality, the assessment of which was based on Knowledge’s internal guidelines, was then related to the political diversity of the editorial team." (Yikes!) 467: 1938:

Conservapedia not being RS doesn’t matter here, because the opinions reported in the paragraph above are sourced to reliable secondary sources, not Conservapedia.

1755: 524:

shows any evidence of ideological bias on Knowledge. You could just about use it as a source for "complaints of ideological bias on Knowledge er often specious".

2572:

Unfortunately neutrality has got its own rather special meaning on Knowledge, I suppose we could live with that except it's not what the sources say either. See

451: 1213:

It's probably not the clearest term out there, I agree. My intent was to separate the more in-depth, dedicated analyses found in journals (usually behind non

81: 76: 71: 59: 3447: 3011:

No, the pertinent bit there was the "defer to the sources" part. Your personal opinion on the existential nature of the sources is noted, but irrelevant.

604: 3716:

Other than that, something something...only partially sarcastic comment about accusing people of ownership in the edit summary of your fourth revert.

379: 374: 3069:

The whole thing is simply not encyclopaedic. It's about people's opinions. It's about complaining. How does that belong in a quality encyclopaedia?

383: 2725:, and continue to attempt to thwart its existence. This is not about accepting and agreeing with the topic, but acknowledging that it has received 1806:

Netoholic promptly tag-bombed this paragraph. Let us wordsmith it. Incidentally, New Scientist's website seems broken - the link worked yesterday.

3473: 1410:

Fine fine, you caught me making a typo. Relax please. I don't "have concerns" about any bias. I am reporting on the topic as found in sources. --

1770: 926:

for now with the current section tag, and come back later asking for another consensus if nobody can find any reliable sources about the study.

3544: 829:"A machine learning algorithm, developed by Knowledge’s internal researchers, was then employed to rate the quality of each article assessed." 447: 366: 867:

It will always be possible to cherrypick non-RS citations like this to cobble together just about any narrative under the sun. Not useful.

2797: 486:

Those are not due to bias, they are due to fringe complaints of bias. "Not altogether specious" (Wired) is not much to hang your hat on.

2139:

Convince me that an academic, particularly a non-American one, who has never perceived bias in Knowledge, would even bother studying it.

1551:

There is also a perception that Knowledge is very balanced, but nobody bothers writing about that. It's only whiners who loudly protest.

1537:

So it is written about, and thus verifiable that there is at least the perception that there is bias on Knowledge, if not actual bias.--

3559: 47: 17: 2192:

are supposed to be descriptive and neutral. This title sounds more like a slogan. Suggest we change it to "Neutrality in Knowledge."

1722: 918:

The section can be salvaged if more secondary sources can be found, and faulty methodology isn't nessicarily a reason to remove (as

567: 410: 1217:

paywalls) from the more mass media commentary. I'm open to other header suggestions, I didn't see one that captured my intent at

3393:

The term left-wing is even worse. American liberals are in fact liberals as the term is normally understood, but not left-wing.

1879:? I am impressed you made this talk page section, but it still could be handled better on your part. And probably mine too. -- 463: 286: 459: 2975: 2310: 1340:

Questions. Is there no bias on how Knowledge is edited? If not, then why are there sources, some of them which fall under

170:

red flag being raised here is a POV/political editor using spurious grounds for removing such an innocuous reference. --

289:). Just cause James Damore is controversial to some, doesn't make what he writes automatically not a reliable source.-- 2865: 2753: 1596: 1542: 1353: 294: 1795: 683: 617: 605:

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/06/20/wikipedia-gradually-accepted-in-college-classrooms

3198:, especially Abrahamic religions which believe in a creation, so to them atheism is the "fringe". Last paragraph of 809:. First, it's a single paper. The only other source is an encapsulation by the Heterodox Academy. So, besides being 3604:

detecting political bias. They just didn't find any, at least not at the level that is detectable by their design.

3152: 370: 38: 3426: 3398: 2882: 2836: 2461:

This article is not needed and is counterproductive. Stop telling me how to behave. Discuss what I have written.

2277: 2197: 3446:

A 2015 study by Joshua L. Kalla and colleagues examined contributions to the Knowledge articles on the then 100

2157:

bias of Knowledge is already in the article. It's almost as if Knowledge is not, in fact, ideologically biased.

3586: 2318: 2314: 2212: 2208: 1485: 1481: 3668:. In as much as it mentions ideological bias, it does so purely in passing, to state that the observed effect 3304:

Hardly. The way I see both terms used by American conservatives, they are almost always intended as insults.

2000:

As no changes have so far come from this discussion, I've placed the tags back to bring attention. There are

3630: 3002: 2775: 2745: 2632: 2563: 2530: 1977: 1915: 1171: 834:

sense of the term "quality". For example, the study considers stub article to be the lowest quality article.

3147:

The word "liberal" means many different things in different places around the world. For example, the main

2627:

A merge would be fine with me. But, seems it’s getting more and more difficult to gain consensus for such.

2309:

Knowledge has such bias - my belief means nothing. Reliable external, peer-reviewed studies demonstrate an

620:, not "Best Colleges". There isn't a lot of opinion to be had here, its all based on quotes. Also, can you 563: 3730: 3654: 3618: 3101: 3025: 2966: 2930: 2874: 2861: 2828: 2749: 2656: 2606: 2573: 2418:

by telling most editors that they are biased in their contributions. And your Edit summary is ridiculous.

2092: 1592: 1538: 1349: 1112: 290: 3052: 2008:

concerns that need to be addressed, and putting the tags is better than removing the section for now. --

826:. Of course, anonymous Knowledge editors are always honest about their political affiliations when asked. 443: 409:, which correctly notes that the actual ideological bias lies with Vox Day. The project is (predictably) 406: 3732: 3707: 3690: 3656: 3634: 3620: 3597: 3538: 3430: 3416: 3402: 3378: 3343: 3339: 3313: 3299: 3288: 3268: 3264: 3247: 3243: 3225: 3210: 3188: 3168: 3117: 3103: 3078: 3064: 3041: 3027: 3006: 2987: 2968: 2947: 2932: 2908: 2886: 2869: 2840: 2811: 2791: 2779: 2757: 2715: 2711: 2658: 2636: 2622: 2608: 2586: 2567: 2553: 2534: 2517: 2502: 2485: 2470: 2456: 2442: 2427: 2405: 2386: 2370: 2355: 2343: 2329: 2300: 2281: 2266: 2262: 2244: 2222: 2201: 2170: 2148: 2134: 2117: 2102: 2085: 2065: 2047: 2043: 2033: 2015: 1981: 1966: 1947: 1933: 1919: 1904: 1886: 1869: 1846: 1828: 1650: 1635: 1623: 1600: 1560: 1546: 1532: 1517: 1495: 1475: 1457: 1435: 1417: 1405: 1390: 1373: 1357: 1330: 1303: 1299: 1285: 1249: 1245: 1228: 1207: 1204: 1175: 1157: 1138: 1114: 1062: 1027: 1014: 997: 972: 958: 953: 935: 910: 894: 878: 860: 794: 779: 758: 734: 721: 705: 673: 654: 632: 583: 557: 537: 510: 497: 481: 433: 362: 344: 340: 317: 298: 270: 247: 234: 214: 191: 177: 146: 3195: 3335: 3260: 3108:

On a quick search there seems to be a decent amount of studies of it. That could make a good article.

2707: 2258: 1241: 941:

Did anyone seek consensus to include a section based entirely on a primary source in the first place?

3422: 3394: 3199: 2878: 2832: 2273: 2254: 2228: 2193: 1447: 1049:

we should not use primary sources if they are questionable, and this raises sufficient doubt for me.

931: 927: 2348:

There are 117,842 active editors of Knowledge, I wouldn't know how to approach polling them all. --

1702: 199:

is an interesting essay, but it doesn't appear to be one of our sourcing guidelines. Are you saying

3704: 3594: 3207: 2806: 2788: 2497: 2381: 2352: 2326: 2257:

seems to favor the ‘Ideological bias’ use. Saying ‘neutrality (ideological)’ is just odd. Cheers.

2250: 2219: 2131: 2099: 2062: 2012: 1883: 1843: 1492: 1454: 1414: 1387: 1225: 1133: 1011: 969: 907: 873: 822:

Evans. By the way, they validated this by asking 500 editors about their political affiliation and

776: 753: 731: 716: 702: 668: 649: 629: 554: 507: 492: 478: 280: 244: 211: 174: 2952:

You know, it's really not that arcane. 90% of it is "don't be a jerk" and "defer to the sources".

3626: 2998: 2771: 2628: 2559: 2526: 1973: 1911: 1167: 3087:

in the every day sense. I suppose I'll get to writing that when I get to a good stopping place.

695: 691: 1426:. If you have no concerns about bias, you would never have created an article with this title. 3717: 3641: 3605: 3527: 3184: 3088: 3012: 2953: 2917: 2734: 2643: 2593: 1943: 1609: 1587: 1099: 2770:

suggests you are letting your bias affect your reasoning. What's wrong with a neutral title?

3564: 3518: 3510: 3412: 3374: 3309: 3284: 3239: 3231: 3221: 3176: 3164: 3074: 3037: 2983: 2943: 2904: 2726: 2702: 2466: 2423: 2366: 2339: 2296: 2144: 2113: 2081: 2039: 1824: 1646: 1619: 1556: 1528: 1471: 1431: 1401: 1369: 1345: 1326: 1295: 1291: 1281: 1199: 1045:

this per the rationale above. Obviously evaluating the quality of the source is OR, but per

790: 772:

turns a cautionary note into what sounds like a ringing endorsement. Totally misleading. --

336: 258: 187: 2123: 3334:

significant POVs in due WEIGHT would say use them even when they are not neutral. Cheers

3047: 2541: 1836: 1680: 810: 417: 161: 100: 2852:

thanks for stating things I did not say, and making the claim that is what I meant. Nice

568:

Vox Day, a Gamergate holdover who has assumed the position of racist alt-right figurehead

3407:

I'm uncomfortable with the expression "normally understood". Normally understood where?

2856:. I ask that editors stop attack other editors, and stick to discussing civilly content. 2721:

Amazing that some continue to not believe that the subject of this article doesn't meet

989:

the existence of ideological bias on Knowledge, but at least it is a secondary source.-

3701: 3591: 3522: 3496: 3204: 3113: 3060: 3051:

the primary sources in a straightforward fashion. For instance the very first citation

2801: 2785: 2618: 2582: 2549: 2513: 2492: 2481: 2452: 2438: 2401: 2376: 2349: 2323: 2288: 2216: 2128: 2096: 2059: 2009: 2005: 1880: 1840: 1489: 1451: 1411: 1384: 1237: 1222: 1193: 1187: 1144:

And proposing the thumb-on-scales image already removed from the article. Funny, that.

1128: 1008: 966: 942: 904: 890: 868: 845: 773: 748: 728: 711: 699: 663: 644: 626: 611: 551: 504: 487: 475: 276: 266: 254: 241: 208: 196: 171: 2831:, what do you mean by neutrality? An equal balance between evolution and creationism? 3685: 3679: 3673: 3665: 2730: 2722: 2415: 2411: 2239: 2233: 2165: 2159: 2028: 2022: 1961: 1955: 1929: 1899: 1893: 1864: 1858: 1814: 1808: 1676: 1512: 1506: 1501: 1423: 1152: 1146: 1057: 1051: 1023: 993: 949: 856: 578: 572: 547: 532: 526: 455: 428: 422: 312: 306: 229: 223: 141: 135: 1684:

been criticised for its authoritarian nature and fundamentalist denial of evolution.

922:

mentioned, we should leave poking holes in the study to secondary sources). I'd say

167:"Editor’s note: this piece is part of an ongoing series on the subject of diversity" 3296: 3180: 3083:

Hmm...now that you mention it, it does seem amiss that we don't have an article on

2393: 2189: 1939: 1632: 1341: 1046: 416:

Should InfoGalactic be included? Is the Salon source sufficient to establish it as

156:, a reliable source and this reference is being used to establish verification for 122: 96: 400: 3514: 442:- A few which mention Infogalactic and its creation due to "bias" on Knowledge - 3408: 3370: 3330: 3305: 3280: 3217: 3160: 3084: 3070: 3033: 2979: 2939: 2900: 2462: 2419: 2410:

What on earth are you talking about? It's obvious this title blatantly breaches

2362: 2335: 2292: 2140: 2109: 2077: 2001: 1820: 1642: 1615: 1552: 1524: 1467: 1427: 1397: 1365: 1322: 1277: 1125: 786: 204: 183: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3032:

But it's a biased article name, one which is only supported by biased sources.

1953:

those who aren't and they are a leading source of complaints about our "bias".

1819:

07:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC) (note - fixed dead New Scientist link and removed tag

3238:". That means, not everybody has a "vote", just the experts on the subject. -- 1163: 471: 2729:

and writing about it in an encyclopedic style and ensuring the end result is

1078: 3109: 3056: 2853: 2614: 2578: 2545: 2509: 2477: 2448: 2434: 2397: 919: 886: 710:

Very weak, find a valid source on this subject. Take it to RSN if you wish.

262: 200: 153: 126: 105: 3530: 3421:

Standard textbooks everywhere and general usage everywhere except the U.S.

2447:

Perhaps I should phrase it stronger. I don't want or need your protection.

3234:

says "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views

1523:

place for American conservatives to air their complaints about the world.

3501: 3366: 2847: 1926: 1020: 990: 946: 853: 221:

You failed to address any part of my rationale for exclusion. Try again.

1612:

that should be included (if that can be verified by reliable sources)...

817:"Political affiliation was identified through edit histories, under the 519:

article makes it clear that Vox Day's claims of bias are bogus. Second,

3179:, it needs to be made clear that they are from outside the mainstream. 2766:. It has to do with a title that suggests a conclusion.. And, frankly, 2375:

That is a logical question, not a counting chore. The title is rancid.

659: 413:

and has had no attention as far as I can see since the initial launch.

357: 3495:

Kalla, Joshua L.; Aronow, Peter M.; Preis, Tobias (2 September 2015).

2995:

only people who think Knowledge is biased will write about the subject

2915:

only people who think Knowledge is biased will write about the subject

3472:

For the internal Knowledge policy on coverage of living persons, see

3295:

Agree with Mark. Also "left-wing" would be descriptive and neutral.–

207:

that this study exists and confirmation of its stated conclusion? --

2508:

Wikipediia, if you can find a better title then propose it instead.

1876: 1853: 830: 3369:, which is ironic coming from those who tend to not like change. 2249:

Saying ‘neutrality in’ or ‘bias in’ are equally a position, but

813:, I see several serious flaws in their methodology, for example: 546:

possible that you could discuss this topic WITHOUT the unsourced

2313:

within the scope of their studies, just as do studies reveal a

2272:

faked? Or do we say that the neutrality policy dictates that.

1440:

I recognized that there is a gap in our coverage. I also wrote

1703:"Conservapedia - the US religious right's answer to Knowledge" 1274:...everyone seems to say yes WP is biased or inept or etcetera 983:"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." 852:

I don't think this study should be included in this article.-

25: 1443:

The Return of the Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman

360:, who was disgruntled with our mainstream-centric version of 1798:, Charles Arthur, July 1, 2008, The Guardian Technology blog 3196:

A sizable percentage of the world's population is religious

2227:

That would be fine, but not necessary per the arguments at

903:

section above for discussion about one secondary source. --

698:

cite it - one specifically as coverage in "news media". --

570:". Vox Day is an edgelord, with all the shit that implies. 182:

It is a totally crap source, as Guy said. Abysmal editing.

474:

French news). Obviously pertinent and tons of sources. --

1771:"Internet rules and laws: the top 10, from Godwin to Poe" 1723:"Conservapedia hopes to "fix" Knowledge's "liberal bias"" 562:

BLP dies not require us to deny the subject's own words.

335:

citing James Damore; an undue opinion by a non-expert. --

2744:

As for a comment above about biased sources, please see

616:- I don't understand what you mean. This source is from 3697: 3497:"Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information" 768: 396: 392: 388: 1315:

Oh, by the way, I have further renamed the section to

3441:

Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information

2827:

those views. Knowledge calls that policy neutrality.

2798:

Distribution and density of green cheese on the moon

515:

There are a coupe of problems with that. First, the

3664:Linking this to ideological bias looks to me to be 2093:Criticism of Knowledge#American and corporate bias 688:U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking 3194:and just present claims and reactions to claims. 1089:article are a team of editors, an editorial team. 1972:to other articles. But, I accept the consensus. 1796:Conservapedia has a little hangup over evolution 420:in an article on ideological bias on Knowledge? 203:is not a reliable secondary source for a simple 2317:within the scope of those studies. The article 1835:I don't understand removing the tags claiming " 1219:Knowledge:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article 93: 2558:As TFD suggested: "Neutrality in Knowledge". 1019:Yeah, that's not how it's supposed to work.- 8: 3696:I will say that I disagree with your stated 2737:by including all POVs regarding the subject. 2592:there would be a strong consensus for that. 1748:"Creationist critics get their comeuppance" 3521: 3055:, what on earth is your problem with it? 3053:Welcome to the Knowledge of the alt-right 2396:and thus against the basis of Knowledge. 3230:"Fringe" is not the same as "minority". 3143:Use of the word "liberal" in the article 3487: 3474:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons 3456: 3216:did. Creationism is an American thing. 3120:I think that could make a good article. 2997:is of worthy mention. Just my opinion. 1891:Just me and virtually everybody above. 1693: 1290:By "everyone", he obviously means only 985:By the way, Damore doesn't make a case 275:Agreed with the last statement made by 3536: 2994: 2914: 2767: 2763: 982: 978: 166: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1198:, why is this called public opinion? 807:The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds (2017) 801:The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds (2017) 7: 2768:most news sources lean to the left…. 1464:The ideological balance of Knowledge 1077:The machine learning explanation is 965:source was originally part of it. -- 660:https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges 3558:Lewis, Kevin (September 20, 2015). 1746:Marshall, Michael (June 25, 2008). 1276:" Everyone? That is so very wrong! 3543:: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI ( 1318:Further claims of ideological bias 805:I have concerns about the section 24: 18:Talk:Ideological bias on Knowledge 1769:Chivers, Tom (October 23, 2009). 1462:Why didn't you call the article " 133:which might perhaps offset that. 2993:OTOH, I think your opinion that 1321:. It sounds more encyclopaedic. 690:. Two separate journal articles 29: 1701:Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-02). 1336:There is no bias on Knowledge? 1: 2976:Ideological bias on Knowledge 2311:ideological bias on Knowledge 2038:+1. Exactly my impression. -- 3515:10.1371/journal.pone.0136327 2762:This has nothing to do with 684:U.S. News & World Report 618:U.S. News & World Report 600:U.S. News & World Report 2207:Only if we do the same for 1378:Most researchers study the 962: 900: 846:Well, isn't that convenient 824:they received 118 responses 785:So is the article's title. 3749: 3560:"The rise of Cherie Berry" 3151:party in Australia is the 2414:, and also goes well over 1591:Knowledge is about IMHO.-- 686:- the news magazine - not 3733:12:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC) 3708:09:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC) 3691:08:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC) 3670:is not linked to ideology 3431:11:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC) 3118:16:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 3104:13:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 3079:10:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 3065:09:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 3042:04:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 3028:03:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 3007:02:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 2988:01:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 2969:01:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 2948:00:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 2933:00:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 2887:02:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC) 1422:Typo? Nah. More likely a 1120:Article nominated for DYK 405:. The source favoured is 121:Netoholic wishes to cite 3657:16:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 3635:12:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 3621:11:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 3598:09:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 3587:Reliability of Knowledge 3417:22:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 3403:13:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 3379:22:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 3344:20:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 3314:08:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 3300:06:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 3289:08:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 3269:23:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 3248:06:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 3226:22:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 3211:21:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 3189:18:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 3169:04:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 2909:23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2870:22:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2841:21:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2812:21:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2792:21:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2780:18:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2758:17:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2716:16:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2659:16:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2637:15:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2623:15:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2609:15:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2587:15:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2568:14:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2554:14:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2535:13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2518:14:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2503:12:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2486:12:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2471:10:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2457:10:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2443:10:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2428:09:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2406:09:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2387:08:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2371:04:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2356:04:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2344:03:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2330:03:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2319:racial bias on Knowledge 2315:gender bias on Knowledge 2301:00:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2282:00:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC) 2267:20:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 2245:20:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 2223:19:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 2213:racial bias on Knowledge 2209:gender bias on Knowledge 2202:13:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 2171:20:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 2149:05:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 2135:05:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 2118:04:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 2103:04:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 2086:04:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 2066:04:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 2048:11:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 2034:07:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 2016:04:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 1982:23:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 1967:20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 1948:16:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 1934:13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 1920:13:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 1905:12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 1887:08:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 1870:07:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 1847:07:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 1829:23:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 1651:08:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 1636:06:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC) 1624:04:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 1601:02:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 1561:07:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 1547:06:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC) 1533:11:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1518:11:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1496:06:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1486:Racial bias on Knowledge 1482:Gender bias on Knowledge 1476:06:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1458:05:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1436:05:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1418:05:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1406:05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1391:04:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1374:03:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1358:02:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1331:08:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 1304:07:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 1286:06:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 1250:05:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC) 1229:14:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC) 1208:13:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC) 1176:02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 1165:. Delete after watching. 1158:22:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 1139:19:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 1115:18:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC) 1063:19:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1028:19:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 1015:18:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 998:18:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 973:18:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 954:15:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 936:15:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 911:18:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 895:14:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 879:12:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 861:12:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 795:04:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 780:04:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 759:12:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 735:04:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 722:02:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 706:01:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 674:01:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 655:01:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 633:01:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 584:00:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC) 558:23:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 538:22:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 511:22:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 498:22:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 482:22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 434:21:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 345:21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 318:22:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 299:17:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 271:15:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 248:12:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 235:11:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 215:09:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 192:08:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 178:08:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 147:08:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 101:"The Case for Diversity" 3236:in its particular field 1002:Well, the study itself 458:an Italian newspaper), 152:Damore is published by 3562:. Uncommon Knowledge. 3157:"liberal" doesn't work 2764:an attack on Knowledge 2574:Criticism of Knowledge 1186:We have an article on 1182:Public opinion section 119: 3448:sitting U.S. senators 1504:and keep it neutral. 363:Gamergate controversy 42:of past discussions. 2727:significant coverage 1480:Part of the series: 158:Wisdom of the Crowds 99:(February 2, 2018). 1775:The Daily Telegraph 1124:Comments open here 466:(biased/reliable), 462:(biased/reliable), 450:(biased/reliable), 407:this piece in Salon 1758:on April 15, 2015. 3689: 2875:RightCowLeftCoast 2862:RightCowLeftCoast 2829:RightCowLeftCoast 2750:RightCowLeftCoast 2243: 2169: 2032: 1965: 1903: 1868: 1818: 1593:RightCowLeftCoast 1539:RightCowLeftCoast 1516: 1350:RightCowLeftCoast 1166: 1156: 1072:weren't anonymous 1061: 582: 536: 432: 316: 291:RightCowLeftCoast 233: 145: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3740: 3728: 3727: 3724: 3721: 3683: 3652: 3651: 3648: 3645: 3616: 3615: 3612: 3609: 3577: 3576: 3574: 3572: 3565:The Boston Globe 3555: 3549: 3548: 3542: 3534: 3525: 3492: 3476: 3470: 3464: 3461: 3099: 3098: 3095: 3092: 3023: 3022: 3019: 3016: 2964: 2963: 2960: 2957: 2928: 2927: 2924: 2921: 2851: 2796:Yeah, just like 2746:WP:BIASEDSOURCES 2654: 2653: 2650: 2647: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2597: 2237: 2163: 2026: 1959: 1897: 1862: 1812: 1799: 1793: 1787: 1786: 1784: 1782: 1766: 1760: 1759: 1754:. Archived from 1743: 1737: 1736: 1734: 1733: 1719: 1713: 1712: 1710: 1709: 1698: 1510: 1342:reliable sources 1202: 1197: 1162: 1150: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1103: 1055: 662:-- have a look. 615: 576: 566:, for example. " 564:Breivik apologia 530: 426: 404: 386: 310: 227: 139: 117: 115: 113: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3748: 3747: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3739: 3738: 3737: 3725: 3722: 3719: 3718: 3649: 3646: 3643: 3642: 3613: 3610: 3607: 3606: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3570: 3568: 3557: 3556: 3552: 3535: 3509:(9): e0136327. 3494: 3493: 3489: 3480: 3479: 3471: 3467: 3462: 3458: 3443: 3145: 3096: 3093: 3090: 3089: 3020: 3017: 3014: 3013: 2961: 2958: 2955: 2954: 2925: 2922: 2919: 2918: 2845: 2651: 2648: 2645: 2644: 2601: 2598: 2595: 2594: 2305:Its not that I 2187: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1794: 1790: 1780: 1778: 1768: 1767: 1763: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1731: 1729: 1721: 1720: 1716: 1707: 1705: 1700: 1699: 1695: 1681:Andrew Schlafly 1665: 1338: 1200: 1191: 1184: 1122: 1107: 1104: 1101: 1100: 977:You mean this: 803: 766: 764:Karl Kehm quote 609: 602: 464:The Daily Beast 377: 361: 353: 111: 109: 95: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3746: 3744: 3736: 3735: 3714: 3710: 3698:removal reason 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3623: 3579: 3578: 3550: 3486: 3485: 3481: 3478: 3477: 3465: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3442: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3228: 3144: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3009: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2857: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2742: 2738: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2625: 2589: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2445: 2373: 2253:and closer to 2186: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2151: 2124:12,400 results 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1936: 1801: 1800: 1788: 1761: 1738: 1714: 1692: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1669:public opinion 1664: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1498: 1337: 1334: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1232: 1231: 1188:Public opinion 1183: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1160: 1121: 1118: 1095: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1075: 1066: 1065: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 959:WP:SCHOLARSHIP 916: 915: 914: 913: 863: 850: 849: 842: 838: 835: 827: 802: 799: 798: 797: 765: 762: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 727:it to RSN. -- 677: 676: 657: 601: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 460:The Federalist 352: 349: 348: 347: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 273: 219: 218: 217: 131:New York Times 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3745: 3734: 3731: 3729: 3715: 3711: 3709: 3706: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3687: 3682: 3681: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3658: 3655: 3653: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3622: 3619: 3617: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3596: 3593: 3588: 3567: 3566: 3561: 3554: 3551: 3546: 3540: 3532: 3529: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3503: 3498: 3491: 3488: 3484: 3475: 3469: 3466: 3460: 3457: 3449: 3445: 3444: 3440: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3391: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3257: 3256: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3209: 3206: 3201: 3200:WP:EVALFRINGE 3197: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3153:Liberal Party 3150: 3142: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3102: 3100: 3086: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3049: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3026: 3024: 3010: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2967: 2965: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2931: 2929: 2916: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2858: 2855: 2849: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2813: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2799: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2790: 2787: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2704: 2660: 2657: 2655: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2607: 2605: 2590: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2575: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2495: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2385: 2384: 2380: 2379: 2374: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2354: 2351: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2328: 2325: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2255:WP:COMMONNAME 2252: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2241: 2236: 2235: 2230: 2229:WP:OTHERSTUFF 2226: 2225: 2224: 2221: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2190:Article names 2184: 2172: 2167: 2162: 2161: 2156: 2152: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2130: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2101: 2098: 2094: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2064: 2061: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2014: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1963: 1958: 1957: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1935: 1931: 1928: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1885: 1882: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1855: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1797: 1792: 1789: 1776: 1772: 1765: 1762: 1757: 1753: 1752:New Scientist 1749: 1742: 1739: 1728: 1724: 1718: 1715: 1704: 1697: 1694: 1690: 1682: 1678: 1677:Conservapedia 1675: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1663:Conservapedia 1662: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1634: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1611: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1514: 1509: 1508: 1503: 1499: 1497: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1448:WP:ASPERSIONS 1445: 1444: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1424:Freudian slip 1421: 1420: 1419: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1389: 1386: 1381: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1335: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1195: 1189: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1164: 1161: 1159: 1154: 1149: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1126: 1119: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1111: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1073: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1059: 1054: 1053: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1029: 1025: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1010: 1005: 1001: 1000: 999: 995: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 975: 974: 971: 968: 964: 960: 957: 956: 955: 951: 948: 944: 940: 939: 938: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 912: 909: 906: 902: 898: 897: 896: 892: 888: 883: 882: 881: 880: 877: 876: 872: 871: 866: 862: 858: 855: 847: 843: 839: 836: 832: 828: 825: 820: 816: 815: 814: 812: 808: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 783: 782: 781: 778: 775: 770: 763: 761: 760: 757: 756: 752: 751: 736: 733: 730: 725: 724: 723: 720: 719: 715: 714: 709: 708: 707: 704: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 682:This is from 681: 680: 679: 678: 675: 672: 671: 667: 666: 661: 658: 656: 653: 652: 648: 647: 641: 640:Best Colleges 637: 636: 635: 634: 631: 628: 623: 619: 613: 607: 606: 599: 585: 580: 575: 574: 569: 565: 561: 560: 559: 556: 553: 549: 545: 541: 540: 539: 534: 529: 528: 522: 518: 514: 513: 512: 509: 506: 501: 500: 499: 496: 495: 491: 490: 485: 484: 483: 480: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 456:la Repubblica 453: 452:la Repubblica 449: 445: 441: 438: 437: 436: 435: 430: 425: 424: 419: 414: 412: 408: 402: 398: 394: 390: 385: 381: 376: 372: 368: 364: 359: 350: 346: 342: 338: 334: 331: 330: 319: 314: 309: 308: 302: 301: 300: 296: 292: 288: 285: 282: 278: 274: 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 251: 250: 249: 246: 243: 238: 237: 236: 231: 226: 225: 220: 216: 213: 210: 206: 202: 198: 195: 194: 193: 189: 185: 181: 180: 179: 176: 173: 168: 163: 159: 155: 151: 150: 149: 148: 143: 138: 137: 132: 128: 124: 118: 108: 107: 102: 98: 97:Damore, James 89: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3678: 3669: 3663: 3583: 3569:. Retrieved 3563: 3553: 3539:cite journal 3506: 3500: 3490: 3482: 3468: 3459: 3276: 3235: 3156: 3149:conservative 3148: 3146: 2897: 2807: 2802: 2701: 2498: 2493: 2491:been posed. 2382: 2377: 2306: 2251:WP:PRECISION 2232: 2188: 2185:Article Name 2158: 2154: 2072: 2056: 2021: 1954: 1892: 1857: 1807: 1805: 1791: 1779:. Retrieved 1774: 1764: 1756:the original 1751: 1741: 1730:. Retrieved 1727:Ars Technica 1726: 1717: 1706:. Retrieved 1696: 1688: 1668: 1666: 1607: 1585: 1505: 1502:WP:OWNership 1463: 1441: 1379: 1339: 1317: 1316: 1314: 1273: 1214: 1185: 1145: 1134: 1129: 1123: 1096: 1071: 1050: 1042: 1003: 986: 923: 917: 874: 869: 864: 851: 823: 818: 806: 804: 767: 754: 749: 745: 717: 712: 669: 664: 650: 645: 639: 621: 608: 603: 571: 543: 525: 520: 516: 493: 488: 439: 421: 415: 354: 351:Infogalactic 332: 305: 283: 222: 205:verification 157: 134: 130: 123:James Damore 120: 110:. Retrieved 104: 94: 65: 43: 37: 3336:Markbassett 3331:User:HiLo48 3275:Of course " 3261:Markbassett 3240:Hob Gadling 3085:Complaining 2708:Markbassett 2289:neutral POV 2259:Markbassett 2155:ideological 2040:Hob Gadling 1781:January 27, 1296:Hob Gadling 1242:Markbassett 1201:Doug Weller 337:K.e.coffman 36:This is an 3483:References 2860:earlier.-- 2122:There are 1732:2018-06-02 1708:2018-06-02 1689:References 1610:WP:BALANCE 1588:WP:BALANCE 945:applies.- 928:Nanophosis 819:assumption 418:due weight 3702:Netoholic 3592:Netoholic 3232:WP:FRINGE 3205:Netoholic 3177:WP:FRINGE 2854:straw man 2803:SPECIFICO 2786:Netoholic 2494:SPECIFICO 2378:SPECIFICO 2350:Netoholic 2324:Netoholic 2217:Netoholic 2129:Netoholic 2097:Netoholic 2060:Netoholic 2010:Netoholic 1881:Netoholic 1841:Netoholic 1608:Then per 1586:Then per 1490:Netoholic 1452:Netoholic 1412:Netoholic 1385:Netoholic 1346:WP:TOOBIG 1238:Netoholic 1223:Netoholic 1194:Netoholic 1130:SPECIFICO 1085:articles. 1009:Netoholic 981:or this: 967:Netoholic 961:plus the 905:Netoholic 870:SPECIFICO 774:Netoholic 769:This edit 750:SPECIFICO 729:Netoholic 713:SPECIFICO 700:Netoholic 665:SPECIFICO 646:SPECIFICO 627:Netoholic 612:SPECIFICO 552:Netoholic 505:Netoholic 489:SPECIFICO 476:Netoholic 472:L'Express 468:L'Express 448:Breitbart 277:Netoholic 259:WP:BATTLE 242:Netoholic 209:Netoholic 201:Quillette 172:Netoholic 154:Quillette 127:Quillette 106:Quillette 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3531:26331611 3502:PLOS One 3367:Newspeak 3048:WP:TITLE 2741:perfect. 2735:balanced 2542:WP:TITLE 1837:WP:POINT 1777:. London 1679:founder 1292:scotsmen 899:See the 811:WP:UNDUE 544:remotely 411:moribund 287:contribs 162:WP:UNDUE 3523:4558055 3277:liberal 3181:Brunton 2731:neutral 2307:believe 2058:is. -- 2006:WP:NPOV 1940:Brunton 1043:Exclude 963:#Damore 943:WP:ONUS 901:#Damore 831:MW:ORES 440:Include 380:protect 375:history 358:Vox Day 255:WP:IDHT 197:WP:CRAP 39:archive 3674:WP:BLP 3666:WP:SYN 3571:5 June 3409:HiLo48 3371:HiLo48 3306:HiLo48 3297:Lionel 3281:HiLo48 3218:HiLo48 3161:HiLo48 3071:HiLo48 3034:HiLo48 2980:HiLo48 2940:HiLo48 2901:HiLo48 2723:WP:GNG 2703:HiLo48 2463:HiLo48 2420:HiLo48 2416:WP:5P4 2412:WP:5P2 2363:HiLo48 2336:HiLo48 2293:HiLo48 2141:HiLo48 2110:HiLo48 2078:HiLo48 1877:m:MPOV 1854:m:MPOV 1821:Jytdog 1643:HiLo48 1633:Lionel 1616:HiLo48 1553:HiLo48 1525:HiLo48 1468:HiLo48 1428:HiLo48 1398:HiLo48 1366:HiLo48 1323:HiLo48 1278:HiLo48 1215:public 865:Delete 841:teams. 787:HiLo48 548:WP:BLP 542:Is it 384:delete 333:Oppose 184:Jytdog 112:22 May 90:Damore 3713:bias. 3686:Help! 3627:O3000 2999:O3000 2772:O3000 2629:O3000 2560:O3000 2527:O3000 2394:WP:5P 2240:Help! 2166:Help! 2095:. -- 2029:Help! 1974:O3000 1962:Help! 1912:O3000 1900:Help! 1865:Help! 1852:just 1815:Help! 1513:Help! 1450:. -- 1168:O3000 1153:Help! 1058:Help! 1047:WP:RS 622:maybe 579:Help! 533:Help! 521:Wired 517:Wired 444:Wired 429:Help! 401:views 393:watch 389:links 313:Help! 230:Help! 142:Help! 16:< 3631:talk 3573:2018 3545:link 3528:PMID 3427:talk 3413:talk 3399:talk 3375:talk 3340:talk 3310:talk 3285:talk 3265:talk 3244:talk 3222:talk 3185:talk 3165:talk 3114:talk 3110:Dmcq 3075:talk 3061:talk 3057:Dmcq 3038:talk 3003:talk 2984:talk 2944:talk 2905:talk 2883:talk 2866:talk 2837:talk 2808:talk 2776:talk 2754:talk 2733:and 2712:talk 2633:talk 2619:talk 2615:Dmcq 2583:talk 2579:Dmcq 2564:talk 2550:talk 2546:Dmcq 2531:talk 2514:talk 2510:Dmcq 2499:talk 2482:talk 2478:Dmcq 2467:talk 2453:talk 2449:Dmcq 2439:talk 2435:Dmcq 2424:talk 2402:talk 2398:Dmcq 2383:talk 2367:talk 2340:talk 2297:talk 2287:non- 2278:talk 2263:talk 2215:. -- 2211:and 2198:talk 2145:talk 2114:talk 2082:talk 2044:talk 2004:and 2002:WP:V 1978:talk 1944:talk 1916:talk 1825:talk 1783:2011 1647:talk 1620:talk 1597:talk 1557:talk 1543:talk 1529:talk 1472:talk 1432:talk 1402:talk 1370:talk 1354:talk 1327:talk 1300:talk 1294:. -- 1282:talk 1246:talk 1221:. -- 1205:talk 1172:talk 1135:talk 1079:here 932:talk 924:Keep 920:Dmcq 891:talk 887:Dmcq 875:talk 791:talk 755:talk 718:talk 696:here 694:and 692:here 670:talk 651:talk 494:talk 397:logs 371:talk 367:edit 341:talk 295:talk 281:talk 267:talk 263:Ronz 261:. -- 257:and 188:talk 114:2018 3680:Guy 3519:PMC 3511:doi 3423:TFD 3395:TFD 3159:.) 2879:TFD 2848:TFD 2833:TFD 2274:TFD 2234:Guy 2194:TFD 2160:Guy 2073:NOT 2023:Guy 1956:Guy 1932:🖋 1894:Guy 1859:Guy 1809:Guy 1507:Guy 1466:"? 1348:?-- 1147:Guy 1052:Guy 1026:🖋 996:🖋 987:for 952:🖋 859:🖋 638:No 573:Guy 527:Guy 423:Guy 307:Guy 224:Guy 136:Guy 3633:) 3541:}} 3537:{{ 3526:. 3517:. 3507:10 3505:. 3499:. 3429:) 3415:) 3401:) 3377:) 3342:) 3312:) 3287:) 3267:) 3246:) 3224:) 3203:-- 3187:) 3167:) 3116:) 3077:) 3063:) 3040:) 3005:) 2986:) 2978:. 2946:) 2907:) 2885:) 2868:) 2839:) 2800:. 2778:) 2756:) 2714:) 2635:) 2621:) 2585:) 2566:) 2552:) 2544:. 2533:) 2516:) 2484:) 2469:) 2455:) 2441:) 2426:) 2404:) 2369:) 2342:) 2299:) 2280:) 2265:) 2231:. 2200:) 2147:) 2116:) 2084:) 2046:) 1980:) 1946:) 1927:Mr 1918:) 1856:. 1831:) 1827:) 1773:. 1750:. 1725:. 1649:) 1622:) 1599:) 1559:) 1545:) 1531:) 1484:, 1474:) 1434:) 1404:) 1380:US 1372:) 1356:) 1329:) 1302:) 1284:) 1248:) 1174:) 1127:. 1021:Mr 1007:–– 1004:is 991:Mr 947:Mr 934:) 893:) 854:Mr 793:) 446:, 399:| 395:| 391:| 387:| 382:| 378:| 373:| 369:| 343:) 297:) 269:) 190:) 160:. 103:. 3726:G 3723:M 3720:G 3705:@ 3688:) 3684:( 3650:G 3647:M 3644:G 3629:( 3614:G 3611:M 3608:G 3595:@ 3575:. 3547:) 3533:. 3513:: 3425:( 3411:( 3397:( 3373:( 3338:( 3308:( 3283:( 3263:( 3242:( 3220:( 3208:@ 3183:( 3163:( 3112:( 3097:G 3094:M 3091:G 3073:( 3059:( 3036:( 3021:G 3018:M 3015:G 3001:( 2982:( 2962:G 2959:M 2956:G 2942:( 2926:G 2923:M 2920:G 2903:( 2881:( 2864:( 2850:: 2846:@ 2835:( 2789:@ 2774:( 2752:( 2710:( 2652:G 2649:M 2646:G 2631:( 2617:( 2602:G 2599:M 2596:G 2581:( 2562:( 2548:( 2529:( 2512:( 2480:( 2465:( 2451:( 2437:( 2422:( 2400:( 2365:( 2353:@ 2338:( 2327:@ 2295:( 2276:( 2261:( 2242:) 2238:( 2220:@ 2196:( 2168:) 2164:( 2143:( 2132:@ 2112:( 2100:@ 2080:( 2063:@ 2042:( 2031:) 2027:( 2013:@ 1976:( 1964:) 1960:( 1942:( 1930:X 1914:( 1902:) 1898:( 1884:@ 1867:) 1863:( 1844:@ 1823:( 1817:) 1813:( 1785:. 1735:. 1711:. 1645:( 1618:( 1606:" 1595:( 1555:( 1541:( 1527:( 1515:) 1511:( 1493:@ 1470:( 1455:@ 1430:( 1415:@ 1400:( 1388:@ 1368:( 1352:( 1325:( 1298:( 1280:( 1272:" 1244:( 1226:@ 1196:: 1192:@ 1170:( 1155:) 1151:( 1108:G 1105:M 1102:G 1074:. 1060:) 1056:( 1024:X 1012:@ 994:X 970:@ 950:X 930:( 908:@ 889:( 857:X 848:! 789:( 777:@ 732:@ 703:@ 630:@ 614:: 610:@ 581:) 577:( 555:@ 535:) 531:( 508:@ 479:@ 470:( 454:( 431:) 427:( 403:) 365:( 339:( 315:) 311:( 293:( 284:· 279:( 265:( 245:@ 232:) 228:( 212:@ 186:( 175:@ 144:) 140:( 116:. 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

Talk:Ideological bias on /Archive 2 - Knowledge

Index