A lot of the entries on Wikipedia about psychology display a Leftist bias. So, as a conservative academic psychologist, I should step in and correct that -- right? Well, I HAVE tried but my corrections don't last long. See for instance this entry about a bit of nonsense called the "Right wing Authoritarianism" questionnaire, devised by Bob Altemeyer. I have had a great deal published in the academic literature (e.g here) about this questionnaire (or "scale") so I know it well. It exists as an attempt to show conservatives in a bad light but fails rather hilariously.
Note this statement from the present Wikipedia entry:
RWA is also correlated with political conservatism - not so much at the level of ordinary voters, but with increasing strength as one moves from voters to activists to office holders, and then from lower to higher-level officeholders
After that sentence, I added:
Altemeyer's own statement about this may be worth noting (From p. 239 of "Enemies of Freedom"):
"right-wing authoritarians show little preference in general for any political party".
So the type of conservatism studied by Altemeyer is a rather peculiar subset of it -- one with virtually no everyday political relevance. Like the Adorno F scale which was its ultimate inspiration, the RWA scale would seem to tap a particularly old-fashioned type of conservatism.
You will not find that piece of information there now. What I wrote has been erased completely. I could go on with further examples but what's the point? There is only one point that matters: Don't trust Wikipedia (or "Wackypedia", as I usually call it).
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.)