2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − − ==Reason for locking== − − It was locked because of persistent vandalism. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − :When it is locked, we only get one version. Why not allow people to make changes, add material and revert vadalism? EVERY open source content site is going to have vandalism, it is the job of us editors to fix it, repeatedly if necessary. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 16:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT) Line 42:
Line 37: − − ::These are from a single user, I take it. Maybe if each is addressed we can move on. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 16:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − :::Yes, they are all by me, and believe me, if you address each one, I will have another 30 ready for you. Fix those? Another 60. Etc. Talk page next time please. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 01:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT) − ::::Let me answer a couple of these. − 1. For centuries textbooks in America have used B.C./ A.D. Common Era means nothing to many Americans, conservatives especially. − − 2. We give credit to verifiable sources, we differ from Wikipedia because we allow the Bible as a source. This is not evil. If you see something falsely attributed to America, you can and are encouraged to fix it. − − 3. Examples of Bias shows why we exist and what is broken. Wikipedia has a liberal bias, and does not have all sides of the picture. Circumcision is controlled by a group who delete criticism, if i added a study disproving evolution it would be removed. − − 4. Just because one is a scientist does not make one infallible. Conservapedia allows properly sourced perspectives. At least we admit our bias. − − 5. Wikipedia selectively removes facts. Facts are facts, why remove them? − − 6. An encyclopedia is expected to be educational, not a compendium of garbage. − − 7. I want to know which pages you are referring to. Pages are protected only to prevent or stop vandalism. − − 8. No one has added properly cited info on evolution, because most of the users are creationists. − − i will answer the others later. − [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:26, 16 March 2007 (EDT) − ::I have replied on my talk page, feel free to respond again, and I awate responses to the other biases. If you would like, I could respond to every Wikipedia bias on the Conservapedia page so that it can be removed, but I suppose that would eliminate the reason for Conservapedia's existance. Also, once you give me an acceptable answer for (or correct) all of the biases I have pointed out (you've got a long way to go still), then I will gladly point out another 30 as I said I would. For now these shall do. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT) − − : Regarding 7, Fox News is one, a piece of the article stating the other side of the issue was deleted and called vandalism, and the page was blocked. [[User:Splark|Splark]] 02:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT) − ::Unlocked [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 02:49, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Debate:Bias in conservapedia (view source)
Revision as of 02:43, April 10, 2007
, 02:43, April 10, 2007moved comments to the talk page
This seems like a good place to begin a discussion of why some views must go unchallenged on this site. For example, if one feels that a subject like George W. Bush is complete, that is, not needing any further information, then by all means--lock it. Unfortunately, many of these instances smack of censorship of the truth. Shouldn't some of the controversy surrounding the president be addressed? Or, is Conservapedia really just a forum for unchecked, unquestioning dogma? I just think we need to talk. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
This seems like a good place to begin a discussion of why some views must go unchallenged on this site. For example, if one feels that a subject like George W. Bush is complete, that is, not needing any further information, then by all means--lock it. Unfortunately, many of these instances smack of censorship of the truth. Shouldn't some of the controversy surrounding the president be addressed? Or, is Conservapedia really just a forum for unchecked, unquestioning dogma? I just think we need to talk. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 16:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
==Examples of Bias in Conservapedia==
==Examples of Bias in Conservapedia==
15. There are many more examples of these biased articles, all you have to do is look around. I encourage others who are outraged at the complete inaccuracy of these articles, and complete lack of anything even remotely non-Christian, non-Creationist, non-Conservative, and non-American, to add more examples to this list to show that Conservapedia is much more biased than Wikipedia, which it is attempting to "fix".
15. There are many more examples of these biased articles, all you have to do is look around. I encourage others who are outraged at the complete inaccuracy of these articles, and complete lack of anything even remotely non-Christian, non-Creationist, non-Conservative, and non-American, to add more examples to this list to show that Conservapedia is much more biased than Wikipedia, which it is attempting to "fix".