9
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 63:
Line 63: + +
Colbert Report Viewers (view source)
Revision as of 06:19, December 9, 2009
, 06:19, December 9, 2009→Please comment or ask questions here:
Not really. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view; Conservapedia can hardly be accused of the same thing. But before you accuse us of being one-sided, I encourage you to be a little more open-minded and read some of our articles. You'll be surprised how often a straightforward and honest presentation of facts will come off as conservative - there's a good reason for this. Conservative thought is based on facts and reason, so it's no surprise that in being honest and accurate, we're accused of having a strong bias by people who don't realize this.
Not really. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view; Conservapedia can hardly be accused of the same thing. But before you accuse us of being one-sided, I encourage you to be a little more open-minded and read some of our articles. You'll be surprised how often a straightforward and honest presentation of facts will come off as conservative - there's a good reason for this. Conservative thought is based on facts and reason, so it's no surprise that in being honest and accurate, we're accused of having a strong bias by people who don't realize this.
Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:A lot of places "claim" to be neutral. But true neutrality is impossible; even if all you give is facts, the <i>selection</i> of facts will still present a bias. Basic knowledge of mass communications tells you that. And anyone who has had enough experience with rhetoric and propaganda can pick up on things like that. [[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)