Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?
I've been wondering what this murky statistic actually is for Conservapedia; firstly, would all contributors give their summation of whether they are liberal or conservative (don't worry, Aschafly specifically said that you won't be banned because of it; he's fair and balanced, like that), so we can work it out. Should be interesting.
The second point is does it actually matter? If articles are sufficiently sourced, cited, and peer-reviewed, won't Conservapedia be 'right' (excuse the pun) automatically? Remember, the truth is the truth, no matter who says it. If Stalin had discovered gravity, we wouldn't all float up in the air.
Oh, and I would definitely say that I, according to your standards, am a Liberal.
(I do have to admit that this is a simplified version - merely a lib:con ratio; still should be interesting to see what people identify themselves as)
In the end I think the whole premise of the question has problems. The world is not black and white, and not everyone is strictly a conservative or liberal. Most Americans land somewhere in the middle; in my case I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal...so do I pick both categories or neither? Brewer13210 07:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, but for the purposes of this site, if you don't totally agree with the sysops, you are most certainly a liberal. You have got it, here though; too much on this site relies on this sort of Manichaean dichotomy between 'us' and 'them'. Well done for realising ;).Wikinterpreter
- I am a libertarian socialist (code for "vaguely realistic anarchist") and more liberal than any Democrat. Yes, that also translates to some extent as the ironic "fiscally conservative proponent of a welfare state", but there are ways to acheive such a thing...the main thing for me is the right of the individual, above either goverment or corporation. Might call me a Jeffersonian Republican or something like that. Anmeris 14:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)
"Totally agree with the sysops?" Heck, it's obvious that a lot of the sysops don't even agree with each other a lot of the time! DanH 18:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
To ease the process of analysis, why not create two categories (Liberal Conservapedians, Conservative Conservapedians), so that there might develop at least a basis in self-identification on which to base the LQ (and it's reciprocal, the CQ)? I know this isn't a talk page, but we should sign debate comments, right? Human 17:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
This is a great idea. Now we'll all know who to ignore before we have to read a single word they've written, thus avoiding potential memetic contamination. </SARCASM> --BobD 05:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ah, but then we could show Conservapedia for the hypocritical, lying site that it is, that it censors, and that all of those 'promises of neutrality' were worthless! Wikinterpreter
- I am interested to know where you found these "promises of neutrality". I did not know Conservapedia made that claim. If you would please link me to the page where you found this, I would most definitely appreciate it. Thanks! --<<-David R->> 18:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I demand a category all by myself. Contrarian Conservapedian or something like that. *nods* AKjeldsen 18:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Why only two categories? Liberal/Conservative is a false dichotomy. I consider myself neither. If I had to choose a label it would be Libertarian.Harebrained 07:56, 17 March 2008 (EDT)