Talk:Debate:Bias in conservapedia
Agreed. Debate is good.--Splark 16:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
(EDIT: I wish there was some way there could be a level between admin and random person who just created an account. We could get the best of both worlds)
Why was my writing removed? There was no profanity, no opinions, no nothing. It was simply a list of the Biases in Conservapedia. If there is one for Wikipedia, there should be one for Conservapedia, or you are just proving my points and using censorship. --ALFa 16:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Read it again here, and tell me how it is wrong (without your opinion, with fact): http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd#Examples_of_Bias_in_Conservapedia
Sorry, my bad, I thought it was removed for a moment and it was not. Either way, input is good.
Reason for locking
It was locked because of persistent vandalism. 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. Menkatron 16:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply
- These are from a single user, I take it. Maybe if each is addressed we can move on. 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. --ALFa 01:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- Let me answer a couple of these.
- 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. --ALFa 01:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- These are from a single user, I take it. Maybe if each is addressed we can move on. Menkatron 16:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
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. 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. --ALFa 03:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)