Re: Wikipedia Promoting Global Warming Hysteria?

On Jul 25, 8:02=A0pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> malcolmkirkpatrick

> >I'll accept wikipedia for non-controversial tioics. The topic here is
> >wikipedia's bias on global warming. Given the demonstratted partisan
> >editing on this issue, for global warming, wikipedia is out of bounds.
>
> Coming from you, who plasters most of your postings with page-long
> footers filled with partisanly-selective quotes from biased sources on
> the controversial issue of vouchers, that comment is hilarious.
>
You mean, sources like American Economic Review, the Journal of School
Psychology, and Comparative Education? These are peer reviewed.
Everyone has a point of view ('bias"). Reliability depends on an
*****sment of what s/he will do to promote that point of view.  Some
people work hard to protect their credibility as an instrument in
sevice of their agenda. Others rely on deceiving the gullible. If I
quote people who strongly sup****t policies which give to parents the
power to determine which institution shall receive the taxpayers' pre-
college education subsidy, I limit myself to people who protect their
reputation for credibility (e.g. Caroline Hoxby, Milton Friedman, Eric
Hanushek, Jay Greene, etc. I would not rely on the anonymous editors
for information on controversial topics.

Wonder how they treat the minimum wage.

> I used Wikipedia as a source, because the image is handily available
ther=
e and the
> sources are do***ented. You are perfectly free to provide a
non-controver=
sial source with
> better (or different) data.

That's reasonable.