19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + +
no edit summary
==Yup==
==Yup==
Look at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia| This]] as compared to [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia| This!]] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 07:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Look at [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia| This]] as compared to [[Examples of Bias in Conservapedia| This!]] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 07:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
==Try this==
I saw that. I have checked through quite a few 'articles' now on topics I am somewhat familiar with and I have noticed many which while inaccurate are being posted by people who are sending up the site, aqnd some which are genuinely funny. I presume the sysops don't know enough to correct these articles and may even believe they are accurate. It seems that a sites as biased as this will never generate the respect necessary to attract sufficient numbers of quality contributors. Try this to get a relevant page started: [[Major bias in conservapedia]] [[User:Godlives|Godlives]] 07:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)