Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 65: Line 65:  
Well, to be fair (fallacious idiom), Conservapedia is a bit more biased than Wikipedia. Bias is unavoidable, since "We see colors, but not wavelengths..." (C.G. Jung). There is an inherent bias when we perceive, because our perceptions are based on their effects on the mind. Even if a computer wrote an article it would be biased, because a human, who would have been biased, programmed it. Even if a computer programmed another computer, the progenitor-computer would have been programmed by a human, who would have been biased. Bias is unavoidable; it just seems more ''blatant'' on conservapedia.   
 
Well, to be fair (fallacious idiom), Conservapedia is a bit more biased than Wikipedia. Bias is unavoidable, since "We see colors, but not wavelengths..." (C.G. Jung). There is an inherent bias when we perceive, because our perceptions are based on their effects on the mind. Even if a computer wrote an article it would be biased, because a human, who would have been biased, programmed it. Even if a computer programmed another computer, the progenitor-computer would have been programmed by a human, who would have been biased. Bias is unavoidable; it just seems more ''blatant'' on conservapedia.   
 
[[Category:Debates about Conservapedia]]
 
[[Category:Debates about Conservapedia]]
 +
 +
 +
Absolutely not. It is conservatively biased, there is no way of getting around that. Much of the content is unencyclopedic. It shows much conservative opinion, which of course is fine, but may be classified more as a conservative political commentary wiki than an encyclopedia. This site has many facts, but also has plenty of opinions and viewpoints that are presented as THE viewpoint ("Marriage is between a man and a woman") instead of the encyclopedic way of telling what the viewpoint is (Conservatives often believe that marriage is between a man and a woman") Signed [[User:Chargeintime|Chargeintime]] 21:16, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Navigation menu