Debate:Why do the creators of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as un-American?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an honest question, although I can see why it could be seen as anti-christian i dont understand why it is seen as un-American

Because Wikipedia posts so-called 'facts' that could be construed as making America (by which I mean 'Conservatives') look bad. Obviously, it has an Anti-American Agenda! (Insert obligatory Daily Show quote about the facts having an anti-Bush agenda here.) --BobD 05:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
You imply the 'facts' are wrong and there is deliberate anti-American bias. I read a lot of it, I am wondering if perhaps I am reading a different language, I do not see what you seem to see. User:Seekcommon

I think it's because they don't understand that there are other people in the world and that other people live in other countries and speak different languages or in the case of the Brits use different spellings. They think that Jesus only loves America. Which isn't even mentioned in the bible. But who knows maybe they are right. Rellik 02:04, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to see an eventual answer to this question. The Anti-American claim seemed a little loopy to me. [[AdamNelson 17:27, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

"Anti" is the correct prefix, "Un" as in the question is not. It is pretty simple. Many, many events can be described many different ways (see, for example, the Civil War). Some of this depends on who writes the history (you know, the victors), and some depends on modes of analysis and perspective (e.g., if a round of union-busting creates a "freer market", the lefty would see the lower wages and lost jobs as bad, the righty would see the improved mobility of capital and potential for profit as good). The "creators of CP" see WP as not taking the pro-American view on issues. As an example, when we "went" to Panama and "retrieved" Manuel Noriega, the story from the perspective of a Panamanian family who lost a relative in the "skirmish" would be very different from the perspective of US interests that thought Noriega was not doing his job well. CP would prefer to see the latter, "pro-American" viewpoint emphasized. Basically the same thing goes for the CP viewpoint that WP is "anti-Christian". Human 13:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't get me wrong, I love America. However, Conservapedia loves it so much that they call a neutral source like Wikipedia biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darwindude (talk)

Me too, really. But what are you saying? Human 21:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest that Conservapedia opines that Wikipedia is "un-American" in an effort to make itself more attractive or legitimate by comparison. The decision to ignore criticism of American political developments, domestic and foreign policies, organizations, and the very administration charged with protecting the Constitution and the American people, and denounce said criticism as "un-American" is to simply avoid the issue and attempt to turn attention to the questioner instead of the question. It in no way refutes the charges made or exonerates the challenged 'party.' It is perhaps an emotional response, but not a thoughtful one. It is an evasion of the truth, not the pursuit of it.

Conservapedia's founder, Andrew Schlafly, has stated in this very site that he believes that there is a 'liberal bias' to Wikipedia, so he intends to actively and deliberately promote a conservative ideology and bias. And so, it is to his benefit and, by extension, Conservapedia's benefit, to state such things. It is your choice to research these issues yourself and believe it or not. --Jmkilburn 15:43, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

If wikipedia is un-American, then so is all of europe, since it is far more liberal than americaDalek 16:01, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

The idea that WP has a liberal bias is ridiculous. The site is set up so that anyone can edit it. If something is factually wrong because of a liberal bias than simply click the edit button... The fact that this site is trying to get a conservative bias simply means that no facts exist here. consider this, on here I can write about how barrack Obama is going to be the first Muslim president based on zero real proof, but simple speculation. This site is the most un-American of the two, editing facts to ADD a bias.