Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 250: Line 250:     
Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is.  6x more liberal than the average population?  Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it.  Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face.  Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}
 
Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is.  6x more liberal than the average population?  Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it.  Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face.  Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}
 +
 +
 +
No, Conservapedia is not fair and balanced. It clearly favors right wing, neo-conservative political and social attitudes as to counter the "liberal bias" of wikipedia. It is disconserning, however, to see that many of the facts present in the article relating to wikipedia's bias are, in fact, wrong. It seems like the author never even bother to go to wikipedia. Also, to those who believe wikipedia is biased, there is a way you can change this, by writing your own article and citing the sources. Very simple, really. There is nothing balanced about this site, and it is fair only insofar as you a) believe in Jesus, and b) believe every one else is lying. Note the spend-o-meter on the front page featuring hillary clinton. A presidential term is four years. So, by my count, she would spend $777 billion over four years. Currently, President Bush just asked (and received) $800 Billion for the next years budget. Where is that little news flash? :)
    
== Is that a serious question? ==
 
== Is that a serious question? ==
2

edits

Navigation menu