SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
8,856
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65:
Line 65: − + + + + +
Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'? (view source)
Revision as of 21:57, February 8, 2021
, 21:57, February 8, 2021→AGAINST: add comments
Depends on how you classify trustworthy. Obviously some materials are going to offend people who are more to a liberal side. Come on-it is biased-check the main page about Obama if you don't believe me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:58, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Depends on how you classify trustworthy. Obviously some materials are going to offend people who are more to a liberal side. Come on-it is biased-check the main page about Obama if you don't believe me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:58, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
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.
It could be far better, especially as it allows entries on Christian topics (such as Christian books) that Wikipedia considers "not notable". But the site owner won't allow it. As an example, the article on the [[Super Bowl]] is loaded with personal (and generally unsourced) opinions about how bad the game is, both morally and financially, with virtually nothing factual (such as the history of the game, important stats such as the most successful and least successful teams, etc.). So I added that section, and placed it at the top (where such information would be expected to be found), but I left the remaining information and put it in its own section titled "Controversy". The site owner promptly reversed my entire edit (though later he returned all the work I did) and claims that his information is "important", so much so that it should overshadow the facts. It is this type of activity that causes people to mock this site, even those who might otherwise benefit from having a site that supports instead of mocking their beliefs. [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 16:57, 8 February 2021 (EST)
[[Category:Debates about Conservapedia]]
[[Category:Debates about Conservapedia]]