3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 277:
Line 277: + +
Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad (view source)
Revision as of 03:43, March 2, 2011
, 03:43, March 2, 2011→observation on commentary regarding evolution theory
::::Jimbo and Larry's Wikipedia (and even Larry's ill-fated Citizendium spin-off) do not succeed in presenting topics without bias, where it counts most: on political and scientific controversies. Wikipedia is openly anti-creationist; frequently anti-American (and anti-Israel); and toes the liberal line on climate change. Not only does WP marginalize views which depart from its "consensus", it even censors them.
::::Jimbo and Larry's Wikipedia (and even Larry's ill-fated Citizendium spin-off) do not succeed in presenting topics without bias, where it counts most: on political and scientific controversies. Wikipedia is openly anti-creationist; frequently anti-American (and anti-Israel); and toes the liberal line on climate change. Not only does WP marginalize views which depart from its "consensus", it even censors them.
:::::I note the theory of evolution is not a law of nature, creationism in turn seeks to explain using an alternate theory how we got here. The debate on wikipedia is simply that creationism is one of faith (what you believe) as opposed to a theory backed up by scientific evidence. As a geologist I am disinclined to believe the earth is 6000 years old.[[User:Pinkfloyd|Pinkfloyd]] 22:43, 1 March 2011 (EST)
::::To our credit, I think I can say that we at least '''mention''' the views we disagree with, and usually even give the evidence and reasoning that the supporters of those views have advanced. We here, unlike the biased majority at Wikipedia, trust our readers to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience, objective fact and propaganda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:40, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
::::To our credit, I think I can say that we at least '''mention''' the views we disagree with, and usually even give the evidence and reasoning that the supporters of those views have advanced. We here, unlike the biased majority at Wikipedia, trust our readers to tell the difference between science and pseudoscience, objective fact and propaganda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:40, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
If CP becomes the new wikipedia, then it will be a sad world indeed.--[[User:LordDagon|LordDagon]] 14:14, 26 February 2011 (EST)
If CP becomes the new wikipedia, then it will be a sad world indeed.--[[User:LordDagon|LordDagon]] 14:14, 26 February 2011 (EST)