Wikipedia Suppresses Knowledge on Creation and Intelligent Design
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
It is amusing in attacks on creationists when believers in fish-to-fool evolution claim to use peer-reviewed scientific journals for information, then proceed to throw links to Wikipedia at us. Anyone who uses it can see frequent requests for users to chime in and improve articles. And donate money.
Wikipedia is not exactly reliable as a source of information*, probably because many articles can be edited by the public. One ludicrous article admits that Wikipedia has errors but is up to the readers to check out the sources and make up our own minds. Yeah, sure. Some of their articles have huge numbers of references to weed through — and omits important evidence when it does not fit the worldviews of their writers! Despite its claim of neutrality, Wikipedia is extremely biased in some areas.
 |
| Frustrated woman studying at computer, Pexels / energepic |
Some people of my acquaintance said that they tried to edit the entry on creation science, but all the changes were reversed. It snapped back to the original. Indeed, they use tendentious definitions of pseudoscience to denigrate boty creation science and Intelligent Design, conveniently ignoring evidence that belies those definitions in these cases.
Since its inception in 2001, Wikipedia has been a controversial website, plagued with problems, the greatest of which is the serious concern of biased and inaccurate content. This is no small problem for the internet at large, since Wikipedia has become a go-to source on nearly everything, appearing in a very high percentage of Google searches as one of the top results.
More recently, Google was embarrassed by a gaffe in which their search results pulled data automatically from Wikipedia which labeled the California GOP (Republican party) as Nazis—attributed by Google and Wikipedia to ‘vandalism’. This only goes to show the deep extent to which Google, the world’s most-used search engine by far, is utilizing the information contained on Wikipedia pages, and the dangers this presents.
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.
To read the rest, see "Wikipedia — A dubious source, but a powerful tool for suppressing dissent." Be sure to come back for a newer article, this time from the ID community.
When it comes to Intelligent Design, Wickedpedia extends its bigotry to them as well. In fact, they spread the lie that ID is a form of creationism — which creationists and ID advocates clearly deny. Indeed, the founder of Wikipedia's neutrality policy refers to the article on Intelligent Design as "appallingly biased."
The author of the piece that follows has some possible flaws in his reasoning. He indicates that they constantly monitor possible changes in certain areas so that they revert back almost instantly. This seems unlikely, but it would fit the idea that certain areas are protected and changes are snapped back by the system.
However, there are times that editors take an active part in keeping Wikipedia biased and wicked. In my opinion, they despise anything that provides logical reasons to question evolution, especially biblical creation science. That is because they provide evidence for special creation. That means God is the Creator, he makes the rules, and we will stand before him at the Judgment.
When it comes to intelligent design, Wikipedia and its axe-grinding editors are ridiculously biased and unfair. And guess what? Even Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger agrees. He wrote as much on the Talk page for the Wiki article on ID. . . .
A philosophy PhD, Dr. Sanger worked with Jimmy Wales to found Wikipedia in 2001. He is a self-described “zealot for neutrality,” and reasonably concludes that Wikipedia’s content on intelligent design is anything but neutral. This is the man who came up with the name “Wikipedia.”
To read the rest, see "On ID, Myth Persists that Wikipedia Is Reliable, though Co-Founder Has Called It 'Appallingly Biased'"
https://connorsstate.edu/disted/wikipedia/
https://paperpile.com/g/wikipedia-credible-source/
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
https://apuedge.com/why-you-cannot-use-wikipedia-as-an-academic-source/
https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-as-wikipedia-turns-20-how-credible-is-it/a-56228222
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Wikipedia-Can-Be-Unreliable-Known-Errors-Not-Corrected