User:Wound theology/Yes, you are a nerd.

Alternative title: All your bias are belong to us

Yes. We are biased.
So yes, we are biased.


 * We are biased towards pseudoscience, and biased against science.
 * We are biased towards astrology, and biased against astronomy.
 * We are biased towards alchemy, and biased against chemistry.
 * We are biased towards numerology, and biased against mathematics.
 * We are biased towards homeopathy, and biased against Western medicine.
 * We are biased towards acupuncture, and biased against venipuncture.
 * We are biased towards esoteric energy, and biased against solar energy.
 * We are biased towards qi, and biased against nuclear fusion.
 * We are biased towards cargo cults, and biased against cargo planes.
 * We are biased towards magnetic therapy, and biased against magnetic resonance imaging.
 * We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
 * We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
 * We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
 * 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.
 * We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
 * We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
 * We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.
 * 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.
 * We are biased towards flood geology, and biased against geology.
 * 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.
 * We are biased towards psychoanalysis, and biased against psychology.
 * We are biased towards Lysenkoism, and biased against Mendelism.

And we are not going to change.

Recommended usage
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, 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 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".

ro:Wikipedia:GOODBIAS