Debate:Is Conservapedia neutral or onesided?
|!||THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.|
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
Conservapedia is neutral
It really depends what you are asking. Yes - conservapedia is neutral to FACTS. One could argue that Conservapedia is one-sided because sometimes it omits a point of view, but the truth is that most of these people are liberals who simply do not accept that the truth often sides with a particular point of view that they do not like. Neutral does not mean using falsehoods to balance out an article - it means telling the facts as they are.--RoyS 15:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
CP is neutral. I side with the Conservative POV and I push a one-sided agenda. Go my team!!! I believe question posed is worded wrong. Is CP neutral, what is neutral? Neutral to right and wrong? NO. Is CP onesided? If you mean does CP side with the truth? YES. Side with conservatives? YES. Side with lies? NO. Find me an article on Wikipedia that glorifies Republicans or slanders a Democrat? Impossible. On CP, I see liberals posting Republican scandals such Buz Lukens. Neutral?--jp 21:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia is one-sided
Conservapedia is necessarily one-sided. That side is the early 21st century American socially and politically conservative, predominately White and Christian side. The tone is unyielding toward these values, which is why Conservapedia repels users from other perspectives. RWest 10:27, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
It's obvious to anyone who reads one of the major articles here that Conservapedia is not neutral. The wiki has a conservative bias. The sysops make only a token effort to appear neutral, if that. (My standard disclaimers apply: I won't respond to responses to this, etc., etc.) CSGuy 19:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
- Conservapedia is manifestly one-sided. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. The Catholic Church is one-sided: it does not promote Buddhism or Islam or Satanism or atheism. Nor should it be expected to. There's no shame in taking a clear position and defending it, but I think Conservapedia would be best-served in sticking to its original mission statement, which makes it clear that it has a distinct viewpoint and intends to promote it. After all, it was Wikipedia's insistence on being "neutral"--when certain viewpoints are clearly favored--that led to the creation of this site in the first place.
- Just because there are people out there who lack the maturity to accept that this is a site dedicated to conservative Christian valies, and who insist on trying to force the site to be more accommodating to other viewpoints, that doesn't mean that Conservapedia should humor them with even the pretense of neutrality. --Benp 15:24, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia may be one-sided, but the real question is "Who Cares?" The conservative side rarely gets presented accurately anywhere else, especially in the news media. To have a wiki explicitly dedicated to espousing the conservative point of view should not be counted as a defect, but as a virtue. TJason 15:26, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
- That's largely my point, TJason. However, in response to your question, I think we (the users) should care--because we should be very open and unapologetic about the fact that this is a site that propagates a conservative point of view. Let others complain, argue, and attempt vandalism; that simply makes it clear that they're the ones being unreasonable and intolerant, to the point where they're incapable of respecting the desire of conservatives to have a site dedicated to discussing our point of view.
- Any concessions to the concept of "neutrality" simply provide fodder for those who want to dilute Conservapedia, and an excuse for them to say, "Well, gee, I was just trying to make the article more neutral!" --Benp 15:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
- Aye. Lines in the sand, and all that; purity of essence... Otherwise, how can the truth set us free? This site is growing rapidly! Full Godspeed ahead! --Frieda 15:51, 12 August 2008 (EDT)