1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 121:
Line 121: + − + − well think about it religion is based on faith not fact so to use noahs ark for instance in any sort of artical is just wrong unless refering directly to the bible itself. plus wikipedia is based on fact not beleif. so that said conservipedia is way more bias then wikipedia.
Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability? (view source)
Revision as of 16:53, April 10, 2007
, 16:53, April 10, 2007→Never, or at most rarely:
To be honest, this site is more biased than wikipedia...wikipedia puts facts before uncertainties such as the existance of God.
To be honest, this site is more biased than wikipedia...wikipedia puts facts before uncertainties such as the existance of God.
Well think about it religion is based on faith not fact so to use noahs ark for instance in any sort of artical is just wrong unless refering directly to the bible itself. plus wikipedia is based on fact not beleif. so that said conservipedia is way more bias then wikipedia.
The only reason people think any sort of "Liberal Media" exists is because said sources base their claims on fact, evidence, and obsective logical inquiry. Religious conservative positions are unavoidably at odds with these claims because faith-based and religious claims are claims made upon little or no evidence. Wikipedia is a neutral perspective, and having that perspective means that fact outweighs faith. It's that simple. Wikipedia isn't biased... it just doesn't favor Conservatism, a luxory that Conservative Christians have become far too attached to. - [[Crazy Mother|Crazy Mother]]
==Wikipedia is a biased Nightmare==
==Wikipedia is a biased Nightmare==