Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-07-05T00:02:14Z

Argonaut:

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) <small>moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]</small>

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be]]==
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2007-07-02T00:53:44Z

Argonaut:

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to at least two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who created this site:

*a perceived liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
*the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopaedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", singles by obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.

I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these arguments as regards these two features and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

'''First''', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopaedia because of its perceived liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one fact. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the globe, not just in America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English-language Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.

The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it is contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention and contributors outside of the United States. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside the United States. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are victim to the subjective viewpoint of the author, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However, I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia Main Page that a negative, or percieved negative element edited in by one user reflect on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article on Chris Benoit carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspicious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information on to one page, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act, as was implied by the news piece.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use on the site, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the perceived imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopaedia, I would like to make the following argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopaedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopaedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopaedia, or even a paper encyclopaedia set could ever hope to offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopaedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopaedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the adherence to the traditional image of an encyclopaedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, religious, political, historical and social information was included in concise articles because of realistic restraints about the size of the book (or set of books).

As methods of retrieving information have developed greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopaediae such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopaedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?
[[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
==YES==

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2007-07-02T00:15:04Z

Argonaut:

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to at least two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who created this site:

*a perceived liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
*the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopaedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", singles by obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.

I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these arguments as regards these two features and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

'''First''', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopaedia because of its perceived liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one fact. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the globe, not just in America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English-language Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.

The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it is contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention and contributors outside of the United States. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside the United States. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are victim to the subjective viewpoint of the author, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However, I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia Main Page that the perceived biased liberal viewpoints edited in by one user reflect on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article on Chris Benoit carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspicious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information on to one page, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act, as was implied by the news piece.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use on the site, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the perceived imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopaedia, I would like to make the following argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopaedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopaedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopaedia, or even a paper encyclopaedia set could ever hope to offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopaedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopaedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the adherence to the traditional image of an encyclopaedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, religious, political, historical and social information was included in concise articles because of realistic restraints about the size of the book (or set of books).

As methods of retrieving information have developed greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopaediae such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopaedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?
[[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
==YES==

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2007-07-02T00:13:55Z

Argonaut: tidied up the piece

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to at least two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who created this site:

*a perceived liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
*the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopaedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", singles by obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.

I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these arguments as regards these two features and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

'''First''', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopaedia because of its perceived liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one fact. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the globe, not just in America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English-language Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.

The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it is contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention and contributors outside of the United States. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside the United States. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are victim to the subjective viewpoint of the author, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However, I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia Main Page that the perceived biased liberal viewpoints edited in by one user reflect on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article on Chris Benoit carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspicious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information on to one page, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act, as was implied by the news piece.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use on the site, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the perceived imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopaedia, I would like to make the following argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopaedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopaedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopaedia, or even a paper encyclopaedia set could ever hope to offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopaedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopaedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the adherence to the traditional image of an encyclopaedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, religious, political, historical and social information was included in concise articles because of realistic restraints about the size of the book (or set of books).

As methods of retrieving information have developed greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopaediae such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopaedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?

==YES==

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2007-07-02T00:10:35Z

Argonaut:

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who would create this site:

* a percieved liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
* the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.

I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these two arguments and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

'''First''', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopedia because of its percieved liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one thing. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the world, not just America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.

The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention, and contribuors outside America. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside America. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are subjective, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia home page regarding the Chris Benoit article on Wikipedia, that the biased liberal viewpoints edited in by one user reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspcious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information online, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the percieved imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopedia, I would like to make the followinf argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopedia, or even a paper encyclopedia set could ever offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the traditional image of an encyclopedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, relgious, political and social information was included in concise articles.

As methods of retrieving information have improved greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?
[[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:08, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==YES==

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2007-07-02T00:08:35Z

Argonaut:

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who would create this site:

''* a percieved liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
* the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.''

I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these two arguments and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

'''First''', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopedia because of its percieved liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one thing. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the world, not just America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.

The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention, and contribuors outside America. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside America. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are subjective, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia home page regarding the Chris Benoit article on Wikipedia, that the biased liberal viewpoints edited in by one user reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspcious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information online, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the percieved imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopedia, I would like to make the followinf argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopedia, or even a paper encyclopedia set could ever offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the traditional image of an encyclopedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, relgious, political and social information was included in concise articles.

As methods of retrieving information have improved greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?
[[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:08, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==YES==

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2007-07-02T00:06:20Z

Argonaut:

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who would create this site:

*''1. a percieved liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
*2. the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.''
I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these two arguments and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

'''First''', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopedia because of its percieved liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one thing. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the world, not just America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.

The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention, and contribuors outside America. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside America. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are subjective, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia home page regarding the Chris Benoit article on Wikipedia, that the biased liberal viewpoints edited in by one user reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspcious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information online, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the percieved imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopedia, I would like to make the followinf argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopedia, or even a paper encyclopedia set could ever offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the traditional image of an encyclopedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, relgious, political and social information was included in concise articles.

As methods of retrieving information have improved greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?

==YES==

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2007-07-02T00:05:03Z

Argonaut: formatting

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who would create this site:
''
*1. a percieved liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
*2. the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.''
I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these two arguments and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

''First'', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopedia because of its percieved liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one thing. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the world, not just America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.

The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention, and contribuors outside America. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside America. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are subjective, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia home page regarding the Chris Benoit article on Wikipedia, that the biased liberal viewpoints edited in by one user reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspcious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information online, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the percieved imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

''Secondly'', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopedia, I would like to make the followinf argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopedia, or even a paper encyclopedia set could ever offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the traditional image of an encyclopedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, relgious, political and social information was included in concise articles.

As methods of retrieving information have improved greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading. What do you think?

==YES==

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2007-07-02T00:03:13Z

Argonaut: correcting formatting error

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who would create this site:
''
*1. a percieved liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
*2. the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.''
I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these two arguments and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

First, in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopedia because of its percieved liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one thing. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the world, not just America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.
The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention, and contribuors outside America. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside America. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.
As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are subjective, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia home page regarding the Chris Benoit article on Wikipedia, that the biased liberal viewpoints edited in by one user reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspcious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information online, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act.
In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the percieved imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

Secondly, as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopedia, I would like to make the followinf argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopedia, or even a paper encyclopedia set could ever offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the traditional image of an encyclopedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, relgious, political and social information was included in concise articles. As methods of retrieving information have improved greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading.

==YES==

Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be

2007-07-02T00:02:06Z

Argonaut: The beginning of a discussion

==NO==
From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who would create this site:
''*1. a percieved liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and
*2. the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.''
I would first like to make it clear that I am not attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia in any way. I would like to take these two arguments and discuss the flaws I see in them, and I hope that other individuals on this site, whether they agree with me or not, can conduct this discussion fairly.

First, in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as a proper encyclopedia because of its percieved liberal bias, it is important to distinguish one thing. Wikipedia is available around the world, and is immensely popular in many nations all across the world, not just America. Many people from each of these nations contribute to the site, which is best evidenced by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion to.
The assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the world. Naturally, even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public (I'm not taking sides), that is only because it contributed to by other people besides the citizens of the United States. I would argue that Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site, which is attracting attention, and contribuors outside America. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside America. Wikipedia reflects this, and so must Conservapedia.
As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are subjective, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia home page regarding the Chris Benoit article on Wikipedia, that the biased liberal viewpoints edited in by one user reflects on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspcious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information online, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act.
In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the percieved imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

Secondly, as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopedia, I would like to make the followinf argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopedia, or even a paper encyclopedia set could ever offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the traditional image of an encyclopedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, relgious, political and social information was included in concise articles. As methods of retrieving information have improved greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.

Thank you for reading.

==YES==

Debate:Has Britain Declined?

2007-06-30T22:35:11Z

Argonaut:

==No==

The British Empire and it's political influence have declined since the beginning of the 20th century, this is true, and is not a bad thing for the British people or the rest of the world.
Since the largely peaceful dissolution of the empire, after the end of WWII the lives of ordinary working class British people have improved greatly. My grandmother was born in to abject poverty in the Nottingham inner city in the 1920's, they had little food and no furniture. This is what imperialism and a rigid class system without social benefits did for the British. Thanks to [[Clement Atlee]]'s [[welfare state]] however, no-one lives like this in Britain any more. We have one of the best standards of living in the world, and Britain, along with the rest of western europe, is without doubt one of the best places to live.
Sorry, but I fail to see where the 'decline' is. --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 10:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

That is all entirely true. Britain has not declined in any political or social aspect. I suspect what the person who wrote that news piece means is that Britain has declined morally, with their acceptance of evolution and all. That is opinion, and somehow not very befitting an website which fancies itself as an encyclopedia. [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 18:35, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==