Tue, 09/16/2008 - 05:47 — admin
[NOTE: This entry was originally posted as a comment by user chipdouglas on 05/15/2008. This site has no knowledge of Medved except as a NAU denier and hasn't verified any of the claims.] Specious "Criticism" Sections Two things: (1) How does one make their own post? I don't necessarily need to do it myself, but it would be helpful if the following could be addressed: (2) By far, the most pervasive form of bias on Wikipedia, in my opinion, is in the inclusion of third-party criticism of an entry. Anyone of sufficient age will have thumbed through a proper, physical encyclopedia and found no such phenomenon; they will not have public figures' lives prefaced or qualified by the quotes and observations of [often unrelated] third-party observers. One of an almost infinite number of examples is in the present (as of 5/14/05 [ed: I believe that should be 5/14/08]) entry for conservative radio talk show host Michael Medved. One specific example: >He is described as being criticized by film critics Roger Ebert and Jim Emerson, describing generally their disappointment with him and specifically citing one of Ebert's quotations. This has not been a milestone in the career of anyone involved, and as one lonely example offers no real insight into the life or career of Medved, so why does it make an appearance? I am pleased to say that his entry has been cleaned up substantially; at one point it was rife with other such specious criticisms and quotations. I would encourage readers to view the earliest versions of the article (check the history tabs for the entry) to see the other four or five examples that existed at one point. This cleanup is probably due to (1) criticism of the irrelevant quotes but more so to (2) the high ratio of conservative to liberal interest in Medved (unlike more polarizing conservative figures like Ann Coulter), such that the former are able to protect the entry from such vandalism. At this point Medved is one of the cleanest "guilty" entries; if I had a dime for every time I had seen it elsewhere I wouldn't need a job. Criticism sections should have their own entry unless they represent a defining factor in, say, a public figure's life. Please keep an eye out for this in the future; I'm sure you will find this to be the most prevalent form of bias.