Wikipedia review: Biased information 3

All the infomation on british crime familys is fraudulent allot of these people are self styled wannabes definately the donald macintye documentory series which also has questionable footage in the a very british gangster installment [except a few who had no control over other installments, i believe but am not entirely sure] they are fakes and only pretending to be gangsters with doctored media and staged events in anther instalment about paul ferris his entire life has changed from the original documentory screened on channel 5 in the early 200o's this stuff is lies the real crime familys have had no chance of publicity as they are pushed to the back. this is all over the internet and tv dvds probably due to incompetence at tv networks publishers things like this but has now been exposed for the lies it really is

I like Wikipedia so much cause, it helps me to learn details about anything that I want. Thank you Wikipedia.

Oh yes it's biased because the Joe Average researchers never went to college. On April 8, 2013, I found some reports about epilepsy which are arguably discriminatory. Reports passively state stereotypical claims about disability such as, employers are reluctant to hire people with epilepsy, states epileptics will harm themselves at work, claims employers are unwilling to bear the "financial costs" and leaves this term undefined. It also stereotypes with blanket summaries such as side effects of medication, restrictions of driving, all while building an image that is incorrect about the condition. One article claims to report "the first seizure related automobile crash" in a place of reporting where it is unethical to report trivial data. This effort is not to document something in history but its an effort to generate a stereotypical public image from an ignorant author who fears the condition.

Subjective and unethical are two very good terms to describe an article from wikipedia. I saw many sources that were not cited ethically, but pulled from a textbook instead of the original research. When one sees books cited for statistics, it means that the author didn't read the study that measured the stat. Instead, the author found something reported in a book, twisted the meaning a little, and made it work towards his agenda. For example, the author cites one research study that studied epilepsy and driving increases the risk of accident. However, the author failed to indicate that the study he used was based in third world cultures where anticonvulsants are not accessible. Of course the risk will be higher in a country where the condition is not treated but if the author hides that it can make it work towards his agenda.

When I complained to Wikipedia about some misinformation, they didn't care; they just told me to change it. When I change it, the idiot who has his stereotypical understanding goes back and changes it the next week. The other author gets this blanket summary misunderstanding from a limited research source and posts it to generate a bias, i.e. epileptics shouldn't drive, epileptics bear cost on society, etc. and with that bias it makes a nice illusion about epilepsy that seems valid to the common public. Someone with an agenda can make a biased article as long as it is written in a nice essay. Wikipedia will not take efforts to responsibly report information.