Changes

4) On the same line of questioning, would you acknowledge that the neutrality of Conservapedia's position is not only contentious, it is merely the opinion of contributors?  The entry on Fox News for example, as of today, contained significant editorialising ("Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity, or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.").  Again, how does this square with being an information source one can "trust"?   

4) On the same line of questioning, would you acknowledge that the neutrality of Conservapedia's position is not only contentious, it is merely the opinion of contributors?  The entry on Fox News for example, as of today, contained significant editorialising ("Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity, or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.").  Again, how does this square with being an information source one can "trust"?   

'''The opinions and biases of journalists are a matter of fact.  This can be studied, polled and analyzed.  No one credibly disputes the existence of journalistic bias.'''

'''The opinions and biases of journalists are a matter of fact.  This can be studied, polled and analyzed.  No one credibly disputes the existence of [[journalistic bias]].'''

5) How would you respond to the comments of Tom Flanagan (described as a fiscal and social conservative) in the same article, who is quoted as saying:  

5) How would you respond to the comments of Tom Flanagan (described as a fiscal and social conservative) in the same article, who is quoted as saying:  

'''We're not "walling [ourselves] off" by any stretch of the imagination.  We welcome all ideologies and have Sysops/administrators from all across the political spectrum.  We have administrators from Australia, Canada and Britain, for example, and welcome those who disagree with conservative principles.'''

'''We're not "walling [ourselves] off" by any stretch of the imagination.  We welcome all ideologies and have Sysops/administrators from all across the political spectrum.  We have administrators from Australia, Canada and Britain, for example, and welcome those who disagree with conservative principles.'''

7) After some widely-reported examples of differentiation between Conservapedia and Wikipedia (on such as dinosaurs, the Democratic Party, and Harry Potter), Conservapedia appears to have toned down some of its more outlandish statements (such as, "the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs").   

7) After some widely reported examples of differentiation between Conservapedia and Wikipedia (on such as dinosaurs, the Democratic Party, and Harry Potter), Conservapedia appears to have toned down some of its more outlandish statements (such as, "the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs").   

'''The Wiki process is one of constant refinement.  I have not personally spent much time on those particular entries, and I welcome the contributions of others.'''

'''The Wiki process is one of constant refinement.  I have not personally spent much time on those particular entries, and I welcome the contributions of others.'''

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:27, 10 April 2007 (EDT)