1,307
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter? (view source)
Revision as of 22:10, April 19, 2007
, 22:10, April 19, 2007→Suggesting categories?
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_quotient The issue for debate]
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]].
'''The Tally'''
[[Liberal]] = 1
[[Conservative]] = 0
(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)
[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
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? [[User:Brewer13210|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 ;).[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
==Suggesting categories?==
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? [[User:Human|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> --[[User:BobD|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! [[User:Wikinterpreter|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! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 18:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I demand a category all by myself. Contrarian Conservapedian or something like that. *nods* [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
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]].
'''The Tally'''
[[Liberal]] = 1
[[Conservative]] = 0
(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)
[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
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? [[User:Brewer13210|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 ;).[[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
==Suggesting categories?==
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? [[User:Human|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> --[[User:BobD|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! [[User:Wikinterpreter|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! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 18:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I demand a category all by myself. Contrarian Conservapedian or something like that. *nods* [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)