2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 133:
Line 133: − + Line 380:
Line 380: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Barack Hussein Obama (view source)
Revision as of 19:50, November 23, 2009
, 19:50, November 23, 2009Serious problems with this article
<b>9</b> is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.
<b>9</b> is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.
<b>12</b> is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.
<b>12</b> is broken, the page no longer exists. This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYname=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.
<b>19</b> has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.
<b>19</b> has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.
:: That's really just editorializing though. It's still relevant to the article. If you feel the prize was undeserved, you can cite sources who say so (there are plenty). But leaving it out altogether does take away from CP's "trustworthiness" - it makes CP editors appear behind the times and if information is left out, people will go to other sources for their information.[[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 14:07, 13 November 2009 (EST)
:: That's really just editorializing though. It's still relevant to the article. If you feel the prize was undeserved, you can cite sources who say so (there are plenty). But leaving it out altogether does take away from CP's "trustworthiness" - it makes CP editors appear behind the times and if information is left out, people will go to other sources for their information.[[User:EMorrissey|EMorrissey]] 14:07, 13 November 2009 (EST)
== Serious Problems with the Article ==
Hi there, I am a conservative who was delighted to find this website; I am quite of the opinion that the internet needs something like this to counteract Wikipedia's liberal bias! That said, I simply had to register and comment when I read this - this article on Barack Obama is downright embarrassing to our cause and is in need of major reorganization. When writing an article (particularly this one, which is likely to be the first page that someone just stumbling across Conservapedia looks at), it is important to think about how it looks from the perspective of an average person. They have perhaps not been exposed to many of the legitimate criticisms of Mr. Obama that this page highlights right now, and may be quite open to being enlightened. However, the article's organization, as it stands now, is simply not conducive to convincing someone in the middle of the road of our honesty and truthfulness. With section titles such as "Obamunism", "Health Care disinformation" and "Barack Obama and Liberal Elitism", the page absolutely screams 'biased' (as true as all the claims are) to a casual reader looking at the Table of Contents. Furthermore, the odd structure of the article ("ACORN" being the first section, "Obamnunism" being the second and "Early life and career" not appearing until more than halfway through the article) gives it the unfortunate feel of a disorganized screed by anti-Obama fanatics, tacking on new things they're upset about as they think of them.
I believe that conservatives need to look to Wikipedia to see how they effectively organize their article to camouflage their liberal bias. Firstly, the article is organized in a way that makes sense to someone looking for general information on Mr. Obama (starting with Early Life, leading into his time as a Senator, then into his Presidential Campaign, then into his Presidency.) Furthermore, all of the section titles are neutral, which allows Wikipedia to seem unbiased to the casual reader. For example, their section on his economic policy is simply titled "Economic management" rather than, say, "How Obama's making the economy better for everyone" - though from its content, it might as well be titled that. Similarly, Wikipedia has "Cultural and political image" instead of "Why Obama's better than you" - though again, it might as well be titled that. Conservapedia must take a page from this playbook - to the casual reader, section titles are incredibly important for framing how they see the content. The section on Obamunism would be much more effective if it were entitled "Economic policy", giving the impression of an unbiased look at his views, and THEN discussed the damage that Mr. Obama is doing to the United States' economy. Similarly, a section such as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" simply gives off the impression that the author decided that this was what he was going to say about Obama and then set about searching for something, anything to substantiate his claim. On the other hand, were the section to be renamed "Religious views" or something similar, and THEN to introduce the reader to the evidence that Obama is a Muslim, it seems more that the author went looking for information on Obama’s religious views and that this is simply what he found; it thus becomes much more convincing and much more likely to not simply be written off as crazy by a moderate reader before they've even finished the Table of Contents.
I believe that all can agree that one goal of Conservapedia is to provide an accessible and credible counterpoint to liberal sites as Wikipedia. However, it's done a disservice when the authors of an article allow their (quite justifiable) outrage and doubt to color their writing to the point where the article is likely to be written off as the ranting of a nutjob by readers accustomed to the liberal-biased media. The simple, undeniable fact is that the average person is going to look at this article, see the organization and section titling, and dismiss it as archconservative raving - and that means that we've missed an opportunity to educate that person as to the other side of the story. In conclusion, the article must, to be effective, seem above all else <i>encyclopedic</i> - meaning that it, through its organization and structure, must seem to be a reliable, unbiased source in the eyes of the average reader. This article, regrettably, has a long way to go before reaching that standard; and we will continue to be squandering a great opportunity to educate those who've not had the opportunity to learn our side of the story until it does.
Please comment, and let me know what you think,
[[User:JacobG|JacobG]] 14:50, 23 November 2009 (EST)