Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?
Wikipedia is accused of having a left tilt, and the remedy is not a competing site with a right tilt, but a competing site with the hard truth, properly documented. Teresita 12:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Right on. If you see a bias on Conservapedia it is only you liberal nature exerting itselfRebiu 15:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Neither Conservapedia nor Wikipedia has any right to twist the truth, to say that black is white. If abortion does not cause breast cancer, then we must not say so. But if it does, we certainly have a right to do so, and perhaps even a moral obligation. --Ed Poor 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
It is completely unacceptble for any source to twist facts horribly as is done here and then present them to impressionable school children as fact. This is one of the most morally unsound programs I have ever encountered and I intend to continue posting this opinion on debate topics in an attempt to expose how evil this site truly is. Helios-Fear no God, fear only that which can be seen or heard, for no God will lay hands upon one who denies them. Here in lies the weakness of faith.
Hmmm. well it does say "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" impliying that its articles are truthful and unbiased but it also says right on the front page "A CONSERVETIVE encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." theres an intresting contrast between these two.- RG :]
I can't believe this is a debate topic! Look to the upper left hand corner of this web page. See it? "Conservapedia, The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Bias would not make it trustworthy or a good encyclopedia! Need I say more?--JArneal 02:10, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --Ed Poor 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was NOTa conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.Rebiu 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Its called Conservapedia as in Conservative. I think that gives it the ok to lean a little to the right and try to preserve the ideas of our founding fathers.
like invading the publics personal and private lives and violating privacy with no good reason- mrRandom
The website is called Conservapedia. Of course there's going to be bias. However, calling yourself "trustworthy" and "better then those gossiping wikipedia fools" is not okay, in my opinian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1984 (talk)
i really have to agree to the person ahead of me it IS called conservapedia, if i made a website called www.super-man-is-awesome.com then it would be ok to be a little biased, but the bias is still quite annoying-Greenmeanie 00:26, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
What makes Conservapedia attractive to so many people is the fact that there are biased articles there. Biased with the truth and liberally bathed in facts and actual reality. All traditional conservative ideals. This may clash with those who think truth is relative to how facts and data are perceived through an individuals political filter. Conservatives require nor want such filters.--Roopilots6 11:44, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
It's a meaningless question
Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's hard truth, properly documented is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) Chrysogonus 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok but, does it make this site any more right than what it is? I know the man who made this and he's a hard christian so you can see where he's going wrong. At the threat of a liberal bias in the world...sir... you answer to that was a conservative bias? Eye for Eye? Interesting philsophy. It is true that you will come across many bias titles/articles but, if thats the case DONT SAY YOUR THE ONLY TRUTH! I hate there liberal examples... they have all the BAD of Liberal and 'good' of Conservative. Which actually isn't that great. Reasons why homeschooling is THE WAY. There's MANY reasons why it's wrong. As a person you aren't as ready for the world. Teens have trouble socially. Vaccines was one the arguments. ARE YOU KDDING ME! "I refute having a healthy child!" Ok, you just as controling as you say the government is and as bad as the reiligon you cling to. Talk about control. What makes conservatives more right than liberals? Unbiased2008 20:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
- Truth isn't a relative term. I seek the only truth which endures the test of time. These days people really have a problem with that concept. For thousands of years children have been homeschooled. The teens that have socially related problems are more likely to gotten them from a non-homeschool environment. Mostly derived from the secular humanist religious teachings found in government run public schools that some people cling to. What makes a conservative more right than a liberal. Well, probably the reason why it is said that conservatives are on the right. Or why liberals have problems even defining what truth actually means.--Roopilots6 12:56, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Bias and Credibility
One of the good things that Conservapedia has done is to make Wikipedia look at some of its own practices and articles. However, this ability to critique Wikipedia and affect changes is completely dependent upon Conservapedia being regarded as a creditable site. As Conservapedia becomes more biased and more fringe (further from the open ideals of being able to edit articles on a wiki and with more extreme conservative rhetoric), its impact upon Wikipedia becomes lost and it becomes more of a target of mockery. It may not be possible to completely remove the conservative bias from the articles, but one would hope that this bias is not written into the article. --Mtur 15:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
- The goal is to write the best articles humanly possible. Every editor has a set of bias, and should try to prevent them from seeping into the articles. We need to be honest with ourselves and with the public, not just crafty in hiding an effort to manipulate public opinion. Wschact 07:52, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
In a Sense...
It's fine for a wiki to have a purpose with "a" bias like CreationWiki, writing only from a Creationist or other point of view. However, this will narrow down those who can participate on the wiki. However, I think it's somewhat dangerous for Conservapedia to try and define what a "conservative" is and set themselves up as judges of who are conservatives. If they are conservative on abortion, marriage, guns, and religious freedom, like myself, but not on economics or foreign policy, does that make them not conservatives who can't contribute? It also bears pointing out the more rigidly Conservapedia defines "conservative" as, the more limited its appeal will be. Americans elected numerous moderate Republicans in 2010, like Justin Amash, but this was just 2 years after they elected numerous moderate Democrats in 2008 out of frustration with the Bush regime. My point is that it's a subtle distinction in moderation between having 60% of Americans support you, and 30%.
It's fine to have biases in the sense of holding strong beliefs that Christianity is correct, that there is absolute right and wrong, etc. These are moral beliefs. But where the danger comes in is when you let these biases control you to the point of harming others. If Conservapedia reaches the point of Wikipedia, of seeking to remove editors for frivolous reasons - and I've seen several blocks recently that I thought fit that description - then I'd say it's becoming just as bad as Wikipedia, regardless of where it falls on the political spectrum. It's fine to have biases in supporting certain things as true, so long as this is clearly stated somewhere so people know what to expect. CreationWiki makes no secret that it's writing from a YEC point of view. But if these biases result not just in strong beliefs, but censorship for any little reason, then it's actively giving itself a bad name, and pushing people away, both from the wiki, and from Conservatism. Banning somebody because the "contribution quality is lacking" prevents new members from learning the wiki and how to contribute, and is the same kind of heavy-handed censorship that occurs at Wikipedia. If you want to be an alternative to Wikipedia, you should be more reasonable, not less. --Jzyehoshua 11:39, 21 July 2012 (EDT)