Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?"
(Added comment) |
(Balance? Here? Good one.) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]<sup>([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]])</sup> 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:48, March 12, 2007
Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Foo (talk)
- Well, that sounds fair.--TerryH 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
- It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --Luke-Jr 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes
No
Seems to me to be quite biased. Geekman314(contact me) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --Sid 3050 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)