1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 562:
Line 562: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 18:48, April 2, 2007
, 18:48, April 2, 2007→Sex and wikipedia
: Sid, I think that's the first conservative edit you've made! Are you really changing your views? Have you complained to Wikipedia about its obscenity yet? Please let us know when you do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: Sid, I think that's the first conservative edit you've made! Are you really changing your views? Have you complained to Wikipedia about its obscenity yet? Please let us know when you do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: *laughs* No, let me make my point a bit clearer, I see now how it might have been misleading. My comment focused on the fact that the oh-so-family-friendly Conservapedia basically says "Go find sex stuff there!".
::I (personally) have no issue with that. Really. I've read (and occasionally written) about many things you'd NEVER allow on Conservapedia, and it hasn't made me go "MY EYES! THEY BLEED!" - and in many cases, I've read about it on Wikipedia.
::The reason is this: If somebody mentioned Goatse or the various forms of genital piercings to you, and you (for some reason) became curious - where would you go to look it up? Google Image Search? (In case that the answer is not clear: DON'T.).
::In the vast expanses of the Internet, Wikipedia is (as far as I can see) the lesser evil. Looking up Goatse on Google Image Search (with the default setting for SafeSearch) gives you... ''results''. Not the actual Goatse, but at least one result on page one that made even me go "...is that even anatomically possible?". Looking it up on Wikipedia gives me a description that tells me what Goatse is. I agree that Wikipedia not perfect, but when I want to look up things that I guess will be rated a certain way, I go to Wikipedia before trying random Google results.
::That's why I don't get the policy here. By not saying anything on Conservapedia, you send people elsewhere. Some will go to Wikipedia, others will try Google.
::Let's see... after reading [[Homosexuality]], I'd like to know more about [[anal sex]] (which is mentioned in the former article). Whoops, no luck on Conservapedia. Let's try Google. The top three results are: Wikipedia's entry, "AskMen.com - Anal Sex" (description: "Anal Sex- The best and worst parts about lovemaking from behind.") and "Anal Sex Porn Links < PenisBot" (description: "Quality Anal Sex porn links, Anal Sex pictures, videos and stories."). Hmmmmmmmmm... yes, that's ''much'' better than a stub here about what anal sex is all about.
::Conservapedia is a filter. I think we can agree on that. You don't want your visitors to be exposed to certain things. That's why I think that it's strategically dumb to link people to a place on Wikipedia from which they can easily access things you don't want them to be exposed to. It's like saying "Hey, don't think about [insert gross mental image here]!" - it will have the opposite result. And if you want your filter (and thus, your encyclopedia) to be complete (meaning that people don't leave your site to look things up), you should include those things here - in an environment in which you have control over what they see. If you say "I won't tell you about this", people will look for the information elsewhere. They won't say "Oh, Mr. Schlafly doesn't want me to learn anything about this, so I'll just stay here and forget about it". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: More generally, the above two comments by people who I assume are liberals are enlightening. They use conservative arguments to oppose exposing a liberal project!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: More generally, the above two comments by people who I assume are liberals are enlightening. They use conservative arguments to oppose exposing a liberal project!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Like I said above: I don't have anything against that stuff myself (I find most of it enlightening and/or entertaining) - I just find it hilarious that ''you'' point at it with a giant arrow that reads "SEX STUFF HERE". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)