Conservapedia talk:Neutrality
This a proposed policy or guideline. It is not official, and does not have wide acceptance. Please regard it as tentative and formative.
An encyclopedia which merits trust and respect will avoid taking sides on many or most controversies. When matters of fact or interpretation are in doubt, it will list all pertinent information and viewpoints, but avoiding drawing a conclusion.
On certain core issues, a conservative encyclopedia must take a stand. Matters of morality and ethics are paramount among these. A healthy respect for religion, particularly religious views held by large numbers of Americans, is also in order.
Ergo, Conervapedia will not, cannot, be 100% neutral on all subjects by necessity. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
- If it is not neutral, could it at least declare which way its bias is leaning? American conservative (social? economic?) with a inerrant biblical standing. This was a criticism of wikipedia, and if it is not corrected here then this site cannot be any better than the site that is criticized. --Mtur 18:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
- You tell me, I'm not senior staff. Just a newly minted first-level supervisor. It's in favor of American English and is certainly being "nice" to YECism. Can you point to an article which endorses the inerrency of the Bible? --Ed Poor 19:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Same here. However once I read about this place, I did a simple Google on who was running it. Since I have been familiar with Andy's Mom for twenty years, and reading what information there was available about Andy, I had a pretty good idea of what the guiding ideas would be. I think it is a fair comment to say Conservapedia will always be on the side of Christianity, since as Andy has said to the majority of Americans claim it as their belief. From its very name, one would not be wrong in assuming most articles, while noting opposing ideas, would be from the Conservative point-of-view. Given all of that, it would still be seen as fairer than most online sources and the MSM. Why, because they usually fail to provide Conservative and Christian points of view without attaching some slander or tone of incredulity. This does not trouble me as much as some contributors here, because I know in researching subjects, people will most likely source from several sites. And that is a good thing. No one site should be used by people to inform themselves. --~ TerryK MyTalk 19:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
- One need only look for conservative's edits. Every time he links to AiG it is about the truth is in the Bible and any science that contradicts that is wrong. I bet you can't do an article on radiocarbon dating with sources from[1] [2] [3] without getting some AiG references that claim those methods are wrong because they give a date older than 4004 BC. --Mtur 19:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy's quote there seems highly reasonable to me. Let the user decide. --~ TerryK MyTalk 20:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I believe we should adopt a policy favouring healthy pro-American, conservative Christian views. We want to make sure our children get the right idea. Wikipedia is indoctrinating the youth with a liberal and often unamerican agenda, it's time we set the record straight. --USAisDoubleplusgood 21:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
