Difference between revisions of "Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia"
From Conservapedia
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here. | Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here. | ||
| + | |||
| + | EXAMPLES OF BIAS IN WIKIPEDIA #47. carry on ignoring this obvious example of deceit in conservapedia, please. It shows you up for the hypocrite you are. Alternatively, address it, remove it, and retain some credibility. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 19:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:10, May 1, 2007
Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze liberal behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:
- An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit. Liberal editors almost never criticized deceitful behavior as being "wrong". Liberals generally reject the Ten Commandments, and oppose teaching them to children. Often liberal editors have defended or applauded deceitful behavior here. This is remniscent of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales offering Essjay a position after his misrepresentations were disclosed, until public criticism compelled Wales to change his mind.
- A preference for obscenity. Many liberal editors have complained about Commandment #3 in the rules, which prohibits obscenity. Frequently liberal editors have introduced obscenity into Conservapedia despite the rules, often leading to blocking accounts. This is like Wikipedia's popular pages containing pornography, as described in Bias in Wikipedia.
- A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have violated the 90/10 requirement of the rules, sometimes necessitating blocking accounts.
- Strident objections to the point in Bias in Wikipedia quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It is not that anyone (other than Jimmy Wales) attempts to deny that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Instead, liberal editors appear to object to quantifying it, particularly at a multiple of six. But why isn't that claim flattering to them? Conservatives would not object to a claim that they are __ times more conservative than such-and-such. Perhaps assigning a number to the bias makes it difficult for liberals to deny it exists.
Over 100,000 edits on Conservapedia offer much data for studying liberal behavior, and we welcome anyone who would like to research this further here.
EXAMPLES OF BIAS IN WIKIPEDIA #47. carry on ignoring this obvious example of deceit in conservapedia, please. It shows you up for the hypocrite you are. Alternatively, address it, remove it, and retain some credibility. --Olly 19:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
