User:Wound theology/Yes, you are a nerd.
 | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
 | This user page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. This page was last edited at 09:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC) (2 months ago) – this estimate is cached, . Please remove this template if this page hasn't been edited for a significant time. If you are the editor who added this template, please be sure to remove it or replace it with {{Under construction}} between editing sessions. |
Alternative title: All your bias are belong to us
 | This page in a nutshell: Saying that "Wikipedia is biased" or that "Wikipedia fails to follow its own neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Wikipedia to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory. |
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Yes. We are biased.[edit]
So yes, we are biased.
- We are biased towards pseudoscience, and biased against science.[1]
- We are biased towards astrology, and biased against astronomy.[2]
- We are biased towards alchemy, and biased against chemistry.[3]
- We are biased towards numerology, and biased against mathematics.Cite error: There are
<ref>tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). - We are biased towards homeopathy, and biased against Western medicine.[4]
- We are biased towards acupuncture, and biased against venipuncture.[5]
- We are biased towards esoteric energy, and biased against solar energy.[6]
- We are biased towards qi, and biased against nuclear fusion.[7]
- We are biased towards cargo cults, and biased against cargo planes.[8]
- We are biased towards magnetic therapy, and biased against magnetic resonance imaging.[9]
- We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.[10]
- We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.[11]
- We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication[12].
- We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
- We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.[13]
- We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
- We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.[14]
- We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.[15]
- We are biased towards a critical
- We are biased towards
- We are biased against anthropology (even the anthropologists) because we recognize the roots of the discipline in race science and recognize the colonial legacy of the science in ethnocentric notions of the cultural Other.
- We are climate pessimists who believe that for some of us, the end of the world already happened.
- We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased towards the existence of St. Nicholas.[16]
- We are biased towards flood geology, and biased against geology.[17]
- We are biased against "the clinic" as panoptic technology of control and biased towards a holistic, decolonial notion of healing that doesn't presuppose an atomized, rational individual but rather a ephemeral dividiual which emerges from and is constituted by relations, including those of the more-than-human world.
- We are biased towards ethnoastronomy and against astronauts and cosmonauts.[18]
- We are biased towards psychoanalysis, and biased against psychology.
- We are biased towards Lysenkoism, and biased against Mendelism.[19]
And we are not going to change.
References
- ^ Of course.
- ^ Astrologers don't develop space weapons, they didn't play a massive part in escalating conflict during the Cold War, and they didn't make excuses to pardon Nazi scientists.
- ^ Alchemists don't develop chemical weapons.
- ^ It doesn't work, but at least it isn't contingent on animal cruelty.
- ^ Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 13#Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers
- ^ Eco-capitalism won't stop the climate catastrophe.
- ^ A qi gong master never vaporized thousands of civilians in an instant.
- ^ John Frum doesn't cause a massive amount of [[environmental destruction.
- ^ Talk:Magnet therapy/Archive 1#Contradiction and bias
- ^ Talk:Crop circle/Archive 9#Bower and Chorley Bias Destroyed by Mathematician
- ^ Talk:Laundry ball/Archives/2017
- ^ Talk:Facilitated communication/Archive 1#Comments to the version by DavidWBrooks
- ^ Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 15#Suggestion to Shed Biases
- ^ Talk:Torsion field (pseudoscience)/Archive 1#stop f**** supressing science with your bias bull****
- ^ Talk:Young Earth creationism/Archive 3#Biased Article (part 2)
- ^ Santa deniers be like, "that was your dad who slapped Arius at the council of Nicea"
- ^ Flood geology doesn't facilitate fracking and open-strip mining.
- ^ Talk:Ancient astronauts/Archive 4#Pseudoscience
- ^ I am too high to write a funny and/or witty response, but imagine I wrote something about dialectics here.
See also[edit]
- Wikipedia:Academic bias
- Wikipedia:Neutral and proportionate point of view
- Wikipedia:Scientific consensus
- Wikipedia:Scientific point of view
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia
- Wikipedia:Why Santa Is Important
- View from nowhere
Recommended usage[edit]
It is not recommended to reply to another editor with a link to this essay (for example [[WP:YWAB]]).
The target audience we are trying to reach is pretty much immune to "WP:..." wikilinks. They have been bombarded with them again and again and have learned to ignore them.
Instead, cut and paste the entire thing (copy from the edit page so the links don't get lost) without attribution (it is CC0, so no attribution is required) and post it to the discussion page where somebody claimed that Wikipedia Is Biased™. An alternative is to use {{subst:WP:YWAB}}, which will automatically add in the content of the essay. Be sure to add your signature and an appropriate edit summary.
Another method that sometimes works (but not as well as the cut and paste method) is to make the link look like a normal link instead of a policy shortcut (for example "Yes. We are [[WP:YWAB|biased]].")
The problem remains that the editors you want to reach have seen so many links to our policies and guidelines that they simply ignore all links, but "Yes. We are biased." is slightly less likely to be ignored than "WP:YWAB".