It certainly does and it never claims otherwise. However, even though it shows examples that are biased mostly to one side it points out and describes the techniques used to create the bias, so you're free to use the knowledge gained to help yourself recognize the other sides attempts at creating a bias.
What I meant is that it points out biased articles in a way that itself is biased. To be more specific, it seems to have a pretty strong pro-Israeli bias.
I know what you meant: The examples the article cites are biased - most of them stem from one side of the conflicts. The article actually discloses the authors affiliations at the end. But the techniques it shows are not only used by one side and the article never claims that they are. So in itself it is educating the reader to keep an open eye whenever they read a (wikipedia) article. It helps you to avoid biased articles from both sides and that seems to be the authors primary intention.
That is a pretty useless^H^H^H^H^H^H^H subjective statement. The author is clearly trying to alternate between examples for pro Israeli and pro Palestinian bias.
Well the user's name is Rav Papa, who is a well known Jewish roman-era scholar, which is one tactic he doesn't mention, press all your advantages, usernames are a great way to show fain to be one side but really be the other.
Lol, I wish you had looked at my comment history before you had said that. ( I too have been outed as a JUDEENRAT).
Personally I think he was attempting to be impartial though towards the end it became apparent that he was more pro-BDS than peace (now you know how I feel about this).
You are talking about bias in the "article level". There could possibly be a "topic-level" bias in the article, that is, if one side is currently winning the edit war, and the author (belonging to the other side) tries to spoil that by exposing the tricks used by his opponents. Heck, he could even be trying to conceal his "topic-level" bias by intentionally displaying "article-level" bias in the opposite direction.
Disclaimer: I'm only talking about a possibility. I'm not familiar with this topic. And BTW, I'd say this article is fine if it only has "article-level" bias.
Of course. I wonder if he'll (or is it bias to say he?) follow her own advice.
Rules of etiquette
Much has already been written on the subject of wikietiquette, and behaviors that are considered disruptive. As a propagandist, your only concern in this area should be not to get topic-banned. Remember that your objective is not to convince anyone of the rightness of your way. This is an impossible task and therefore a waste of time. Opposing editors will never be convinced by your arguments, and the best you can hope for is to get them neutralized by goading them into a gross violation of civility, about which you can then complain at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. But even this is unlikely and risky, as the other players on the article talk page are probably just as savvy as you.
Editing styles of propagandists range from feigned extreme politeness (Jaakobou) to sarcasm and baiting (Supreme Deliciousness). This is largely a matter of personal preference, and really makes no difference to the end result.
There are, however, two principles that you should follow.
Don't budge
Compromise is for wimps. You have a message to deliver; don't let others force you into compromise.
Don't give up
If at first you don't prevail, you may decide to step out of the fray for a while. But always come back. Wikipedia editors come and go, but your cause is eternal. Follow Jaakobou's example: He was losing the battle for his biased lead at Gideon Levy, so he stepped out of the talk page before consensus could be reached. Without him (but with others more compromising), agreement was reached on the text of the article. Nine months later, Jaakobou returned and tried to reintroduce the same lead that had been rejected. When I said that there was a consensus on the wording of the article, Jaakobou protested that he was not part of that consensus and had never agreed with the wording of the lead as it stood. He was absolutely right - he ducked out at just the right moment, thus preserving his right to return and fight again. and again. and again...
Yes but the point of view of the bias is very interesting -- I'm guessing it's from a liberal/left-leaning Israeli, i.e. someone who is caught in the middle of two warring factions who take no prisoners.
Every article in the world is biased. Wikipedia is of course,but what is interesting in Wikipedia is not the articles themself, it is the discussions and debates.
Let's not even talk about TV, TV pure is evil. Internet is at least what we make of it. TV is a propaguanda machine that shapes and controls the world.
