6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 82:
Line 82: + + + + +
Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias? (view source)
Revision as of 01:49, March 8, 2007
, 01:49, March 8, 2007no edit summary
Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)
== Wait, what? ==
[[User:Phist|Phist]]
Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia?
==See also==
==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]
*[[Rhetorical question]]