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

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?