View Full Version : Does this seem biased to anyone else?

09-16-2007, 03:21 AM

09-16-2007, 03:40 AM
Well, we're the ones who should expand and source the article, that's how Wikipedia works.

I put in a little more about IL2.

09-16-2007, 03:42 AM
Exactly, it just needs updating.

09-16-2007, 03:43 AM
And than look at the bottom of the page, there is a link to this (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militaryshoppingsurplus/tp/flightsims.htm) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

09-16-2007, 04:05 AM
Top ten? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Jane's Attack Squadron my arse! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

09-16-2007, 05:40 AM
Well look at the blurb on top:

The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.
This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
This article has been tagged since October 2006.

Wikipedia needs to be used carefully, there are well written and well documented articles on wiki. This isn't one of them.

09-16-2007, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by tagTaken2:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">YES! Of course it's biased!!! This is why Wiki should *NOT* be used as anything but ONE reference- just like any other encyclopedia. How many Wiki editors are impartial researchers? The entire internet community is based on the easiest, most popular path possible regardless of merit, so Wiki become a book of Gospel as if it were the Pure Truth. The fact is that Wiki is the most biased and partisan source of info on the planet because of the nature of the people who provide the data- Human Beings are opinionated and the average person who contributes to Wiki is no different! When will this be learned?!</span>

09-16-2007, 06:05 AM
I don't know what's biased save for the link on the bottom which is outside wikipedia http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

09-16-2007, 06:42 AM
Wiki has many failings including a severe geek taint (check out "knight" vs "jedi knight"), but I wouldn't call it the most biased and partisan info on the net, even. I believe the site editors do try to even out perspectives, and that a lot of people contribute out of interest and a desire to clarify and expand on a topic without having a particular agenda. On the other hand, that thing recently with the IP tracking of govenment/corporation edits was very interesting- leaves a foul taste in your mouth.

09-16-2007, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Well, we're the ones who should expand and source the article, that's how Wikipedia works.

I put in a little more about IL2.

I KNEW there was something wrong with this online Wikipedia! i`ve seen people posting stuff from this as if it`s reality and truth, yet when I looked at it, I thought, wait a sec some of this sounds like made up or biased stuff. I remember reading one about women fighters through history and it gave me the impression that thousands of women fought alongside men from the start of history and gave some nonsense about it all being a cover up. There are also some other decidedly questionable subjects posted up as fact.

I had no idea this was just stuff literally added on by ordinary onliners. This easily leaves Wikipedia open to bias, even if the person thinks they`re not. Probabaly few people post objectively.

This explains everything! And to think that so many kids post up stuff from this as fact too cos they can`t be bothered to properly research stuff.

The good old-fashioned Oxford dictionary and library still rules.

09-16-2007, 07:30 AM
Most people put in straight forward stuff. I wrote an article on Miss Shilling's orifice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling%27s_orifice) after it had been debated on this forums for further references. It has been edited since, mostly links added and my somewhat flowery prose been dampened a bit.

Being the geek I am, I have edited and added articles from time to time. Most have been picked up and improved by others, so that what was a half good article to begin with , has become a fairly good and informative article.

A survey a few years ago showed Wikipedia on average being as reliable as a standard dictionary, but it's very variable.

OT: Great picture, SeaFire!

09-16-2007, 07:38 AM
Remember that everything has bias...even if its in books or encyclopedias from large and well established companies. What you're looking for is effort made to ensure accuracy of established facts from multiple sources and as little conjecture mixed in...Wikipedia actually does quite well when compared against the big names. Its not perfect but then neither are they.

09-16-2007, 07:51 AM
The fact that Wikipedia is written and edited by the online community at large doesn't necessarily make it a bad source. The peer editing usually means that given time you will have a fairly balanced article and there are usually more citations and references than you will find on the majority of internet sources.

Wikipedia information definitely shouldn't be treated as gospel but I think it is useful as a source of general information and a jumping off point for further research.

I don't think the wiki article is that biased. CFS and CFS2 were successful games. I haven't played CFS2 myself but I have heard that it was pretty good for its time. The main problem I see with it is actually the scant attention that is given to Microprose.

09-16-2007, 09:30 AM
I edited it to include a link to the IL2 home page @ the links section @ the bottom of the page