nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 363:
Line 363: − ::Andy, this is one of the more dishonest things you've ever said on this site, and given [[Professor values|some of the things you say]], that's... well. − ::Anyways, Wikipedia semiprotected the article. That means it's locked either to brand-new users (so wait a day and edit!) or unregistered users. It should be noted that Conservapedia doesn't even ''allow'' unregistered users to edit...ever... and the other form of semiprotection allows "regular people" to edit, if these "regular people" wait 24 hours. Seems doable, no? − ::Now, by setting up a contrast between you and Wikipedia on this point, you seem to suggest that Conservapedia [[Homosexuality|never]] [[Evolution|locks]] [[Atheism|articles]], [[Intelligent design|ever]]. Not only does Conservapedia have a large number of permanently locked articles, but more, you've been known to blacklist.... certain.... URLs that are critical of you, and block users for disagreeing with your ideology, or edit their user pages to expunge said criticism. − ::If you're really going to try to argue that you're open to criticism, and tolerant of dissent, and opposed to censorship merely because of disagreement... well... the record is 100% against you. − ::All of this begs the question that Ben Stein asks - all people who criticize you on the site ask is that they be given a fair chance for their ideas to be heard, researched, debated, and maybe won. What the deuce are you so afraid of? Do you somehow know that they'll... win?-[[User:Stacw|Stacw]] 13:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT) − ::: Wikipedia locked the "Expelled" entry to censor insertion of balanced material. Wikipedia welcomes edits by unregistered users ... as long the edits are [[liberal]], whereupon Wikipedia acts like it is not responsible for the smears that result. So, yes, the biased locking policy of Wikipedia underscores how one-sided it is. − − ::: The bottom line is that the Wikipedia entry on "Expelled" is predictably and extremely biased. No one can seriously dispute that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 21 April 2008 (EDT) − ::::Let's assume that the locking of the article on WP was to promote bias. Is the permanent locking of all controversial articles on CP ''not'' bias? Is the suppression of dissent here somehow excusable? − ::::Does one hand know what the other is doing? I look forward to you proving my point by blocking me.-[[User:Stacw|Stacw]] 14:12, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)
Revision as of 19:40, April 21, 2008
, 19:40, April 21, 2008→Wikipedia chimes in: -- removed arguing by user who asked to be blocked
: The entry was locked only for a very brief time and only due to vandalism. This is in contrast with Wikipedia, which locked its entry for an indefinite, continuing period for the purpose of ideological censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
: The entry was locked only for a very brief time and only due to vandalism. This is in contrast with Wikipedia, which locked its entry for an indefinite, continuing period for the purpose of ideological censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
As someone who has worked on both the Wikipedia and Conservapedia articles on this topic, I can attest that the Wikipedia article is indeed highly biased (though it is getting better, with collaborative editing), but this article has problems with bias (in the opposite direction) as well, as some editors seem to have introduced personal opinion and unsourced speculation since I last worked on the article. I'm currently trying to improve this situation. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 14:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
As someone who has worked on both the Wikipedia and Conservapedia articles on this topic, I can attest that the Wikipedia article is indeed highly biased (though it is getting better, with collaborative editing), but this article has problems with bias (in the opposite direction) as well, as some editors seem to have introduced personal opinion and unsourced speculation since I last worked on the article. I'm currently trying to improve this situation. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 14:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)