From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philip J. Rayment (Talk | contribs) at 22:48, 12 February 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, I have added something to the end of this article. Before you immediately delete them, I want to discuss them first. I feel that if our website is going to label Wikipedia with a liberal bias, we should at least recognize the conservative bias found on our website – because surely everyone, conservative or not, can see the bias. So please, provide me with a strong case of why you shouldn’t mention conservapedia’s bias in this article. Either include both Wikipedia and conservapedia and their bias, or include neither of them. I look forward to what people have to say. – Conservativedude.

You see, this website is not liberally biased. It is truthfully biased. You can't call us that we're biased unless you establish what a moderate opinion is. Mostly when we talk about bias, we refer to liberals. You see, there is no such thing as a conservative bias, only a truth bias. And we sir, are the truth bias. Now, can you honestly tell me that the truth is biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Palin4thefuture (talk)
I’m afraid I don’t fully understand your argument. Firstly, there exists liberal and conservative biases, yes conservative bias does exist. Secondly, I do not understand what you mean when you say we are a truth bias. That term makes very little sense. Truth is truth and bias is bias. They are not the same thing nor can there exist a ‘truth bias.’ Either something is the truth, or it is biased. Take the example of evolution: A liberal bias may state that it is scientific fact and cannot be argued against. While a conservative bias may state that evolution is completely false and creationism is truth. But, a completely unbiased article on evolution would merely state the facts of the theory, how it was developed, and the key components of it without discussing views of whether or not it is true. I do not think conservapedia does this. It presents a conservative bias, which isn’t a ‘truth bias’ it’s just a bias. Do you think that assessment is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conservativedude (talk)

Like most words, the word "bias" has multiple meanings (or shades of meaning) and connotations. It can, for example, mean a "predisposition toward one belief before another". In that sense, Conservativedude is correct. However, it can also have the meaning or connotation of a prejudice or an "unreasoned judgement". Used that way, Conservativedude may not be so correct. I have argued before (and this seems to be what Palin4thefuture is arguing) that we have a bias towards the truth. That is whether or not something is true is (in principle) the yardstick for inclusion or exclusion from Conservapedia (ignoring other facts such as notability). This is different from Wikipedia where the yardstick is whether or not something can be referenced. Although this article didn't mention it because it was about bias, not Wikipedia, the main issue I (and I think Conservapedia) have with Wikipedia is not its bias per se, but its bias in the face of its claim of neutrality. I'll add a link to an essay of mine to the article. Philip J. Rayment 21:48, 12 February 2009 (EST)