Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,253
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + +
Debate:Is Conservapedia neutral or onesided? (view source)
Revision as of 19:24, August 12, 2008
, 19:24, August 12, 2008→Conservapedia is one-sided
It's obvious to anyone who reads one of the major articles here that Conservapedia is not neutral. The wiki has a conservative bias. The sysops make only a token effort to appear neutral, if that. (My standard disclaimers apply: I won't respond to responses to this, etc., etc.) [[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
It's obvious to anyone who reads one of the major articles here that Conservapedia is not neutral. The wiki has a conservative bias. The sysops make only a token effort to appear neutral, if that. (My standard disclaimers apply: I won't respond to responses to this, etc., etc.) [[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is manifestly one-sided. However, that is not necessarily a bad thing. The Catholic Church is one-sided: it does not promote Buddhism or Islam or Satanism or atheism. Nor should it be expected to. There's no shame in taking a clear position and defending it, but I think Conservapedia would be best-served in sticking to its original mission statement, which makes it clear that it has a distinct viewpoint and intends to promote it. After all, it was Wikipedia's insistence on being "neutral"--when certain viewpoints are clearly favored--that led to the creation of this site in the first place.
:Just because there are people out there who lack the maturity to accept that this is a site dedicated to conservative Christian valies, and who insist on trying to force the site to be more accommodating to other viewpoints, that doesn't mean that Conservapedia should humor them with even the pretense of neutrality. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:24, 12 August 2008 (EDT)