Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 00:32, January 4, 2008

319 bytes added ,  00:32, January 4, 2008
→‎Wikipedia as a knowledge base: reply
Line 404: Line 404:     
Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]
 
Admittly Wikipedia is subject to false accusations etc etc. Being such an enourmus site it must be hard to vet everything on it. However it is misleading also to state conservapedia is an encyclopedia by the same regard and although it doesnt claim to be neutral, conservapedia is just as slanted to particular view (or ideology or whatever you want to call it) as Wikipedia. I mean this without offence of course. Just trying to get a clearer picture. [[MetcalfeM]]
 +
 +
: The "clearer picture" is that Wikipedia lies in claiming to be neutral, and we do not lie about what we are.  Second, Wikipedia allows gossip that destroys and misleads people, while we prohibit it.  If you like the National Enquirer, you'll love Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,530

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/363722"

Navigation menu