19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 22:
Line 22: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Colbert Report Viewers (view source)
Revision as of 18:02, December 10, 2009
, 18:02, December 10, 2009→Please comment or ask questions here:
=== Please comment or ask questions here: ===
=== Please comment or ask questions here: ===
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''
'''Please sign all comments with "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>". Thank you.'''
Steech, December 10, 2009.......................................................
I've known about Conservapedia for months. I've been fascinated with it since my initial introduction (when the special project to reform Jesus's "groovy liberal" image was anounced on a news site).
There's some equivocating concerning the obvious bias (I think the device of substituting the word "truth" for "bias" is entertaining), but the corporation does not actually conceal its mission. Conservapedia is candid with the following facts: It represents the conservative socio-political viewpoint, it is alligned with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and it is hostile to opposing viewpoints. I note the distinction between this candor and react differently to Conservapedia than I do to a corporation like News Corp (Fox News), who boasts fairness and balance. Remember: Conservapedia does not promise balance. Conservapedia is predominantly fair.
Despite an open allignment with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, Conservapedia is not contemptuous of other forms of Christianity, or even other religions. They dutifully note the basic interpretations of other scriptures like the Q'aran and Torah and tell the stories respectfully. They also include other denominations' interpretations of Biblical text without condemning them. Conservapedia articles suggest outside doctrine is foolhardy, but stops short of actually calling their adherents fools.
What Conservapedia actually does is compile the conservative viewpoint in a way that incorporates most of the world's features and topics (from science to history to theology) in such a way that has the potential to reconcile problems (such as science versus ideology) and unify conservatives into a more cohesive bloc than was possible before technology of this scale. It is also a reference for non-conservatives to understand their fellow countrymen better. In my opinion, both functions have a benefit - even if I am an apostate by Conservapedia's rigid measure.
The only problem I see with Conservapedia is it's deliberate mission to be more concise than their rival (and source of inspiration and design), Wikipedia. Some topics are completely sterile and do not admit any sort of bias (gravity, for example). Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion. However, Conservapedia probably actively seeks to limit the length of its articles to conform with its mission. If the latter is true, Conservapedia has turned the clock back on the encyclopedia as reference source to the days of the hopelessly out of date set of World Books that were the staple of every suburban home in the 60s and 70s. Good for identifying major breeds of dogs, but inadequate for much else.
My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen. They are not evil men and women. They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale. If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent. Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.
Respectfully, Steech, December 10, 2009..............................................
"To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias."
"To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias."