53
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 243:
Line 243: + +
Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad (view source)
Revision as of 16:03, July 1, 2010
, 16:03, July 1, 2010no edit summary
:Incidental bias, what a lovely word. Maybe you would think different if you read http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia They have the most pages on the internet, clap clap clap. I truly believe they have the most anti-God pages as well. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:Incidental bias, what a lovely word. Maybe you would think different if you read http://www.conservapedia.com/Bias_in_Wikipedia They have the most pages on the internet, clap clap clap. I truly believe they have the most anti-God pages as well. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:44, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Likeminded people who agree with Osirus1723, where is the external link section of Wikipedia's Criticism of atheism article located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism Why don't you test your hypothesis that the ideological bias at Wikipedia is incidental? Test it as soon as you read this message by adding a external link section to the Wikipedia criticism of atheism article located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::Likeminded people who agree with Osirus1723, where is the external link section of Wikipedia's Criticism of atheism article located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism Why don't you test your hypothesis that the ideological bias at Wikipedia is incidental? Test it as soon as you read this message by adding a external link section to the Wikipedia criticism of atheism article located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:04, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::: While, I would agree that there is some bias in Wikipedia, for a number of reasons, I would like to point out that there ''are'' external links on the article you posted. They're in the reference section, including [http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm this link to a Catholic site], [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html this article from the Christian Science Monitor], and [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=44990 this debate between the author of an extreme atheist book and a theologian at Christianity Today]. I think that the existence of the article itself is at least an attempt to have genuine neutrality on Wikipedia, even if it isn't perfect. [[User:CobaltFusion|CobaltFusion]] 12:03, 1 July 2010 (EDT)
The movement toward being as big as Wikipedia will be a tough road. We must follow Ezekiel 2:23 because the way it is written tells us how we can become great and rise above. The downfall of this site will be the sins of homosexuals in their quest to "gay" up the internet. We must work to keep this page solely conservative and keep it to inform the masses the right way, and be better than Liberal Wikipedia.
The movement toward being as big as Wikipedia will be a tough road. We must follow Ezekiel 2:23 because the way it is written tells us how we can become great and rise above. The downfall of this site will be the sins of homosexuals in their quest to "gay" up the internet. We must work to keep this page solely conservative and keep it to inform the masses the right way, and be better than Liberal Wikipedia.