Conservapedia:Ask questions

2007-03-13T02:32:05Z

BalancedBudget:

Hi! Leave any questions you have for us here.

=== Bias ===

If wikipedia is "liberal biased" I assume it would be because that's the way the world is biased because the people who write for it are not censored unless it is blatantly wrong. I came to this site and thought that as the homepage calls it "more accurate" info. Unfortunately, I seemed to have stumbled on less accurate information. Note, that some articles leave out anything that doesn't have to do with a specific biased message. (Example: the abortion article doesn't even explain what it is, just why it's bad.)

My real question is, why will this be deleted, instead of talked about and addressed on your site?

:Users are probably less likely to get blocked here than on Wikipedia. But as to you central claim, bias arises most easily in unrestrained groups of people, like gangs, mobs and political parties. We have a set of simple, clear rules to keep us from ending up like Wikipedia. Check out our list of [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. Thanks and hope you can contribute. By the way, the abortion page does define what it is, though I expect everyone knows that already.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not censored? Please see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight&diff=prev&oldid=85523670#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F] Recently when an editor pointed out "Dominionism", as defined by Wikipedia is "a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism", didn't apply to Paul Weyrich because he is Roman Catholic, he nonetheless received a community ban so the pejoratives aimed at Paul Weyrich will stick. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Scope ===

What is the proposed scope of Conservapedia? You currently have articles on History, Economics, Science, and Law. Do you intend to expand this list in future?--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Parochial language commandment ===

I just reflexively corrected (at least) 5 spelling errors in the above paragraphs.

I am curious why the American version of spellings is considered so important that it is a "commandment" rather than simply an editorial policy?

I think it is acceptable for you to pick and use any English dialect you wish as a policy, and American English is one of the more popular ones, but I think it capricious that you would ban otherwise valuable contributions from someone for using their own. Simply edit the articles for spelling as you see fit, as I did above.

[[User:Brian Wilson|Brian Wilson]] 20:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Purpose? ===

I'm genuinely confused on what the true purpose of this project is. Is the intention to actually to build an actual encyclopedia which is balanced, accurate and free of superfluous information or is the intention to "balance out" wikipedia by providing an oppositely biased viewpoint? For example, the [[Gun control]] article seems to at least be written in a bias tone and it doesn't cite any sources.
[[User:BalancedBudget|BalancedBudget]] 22:32, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Ask questions