Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Neutrality"
(Conservapedia Should Not Be Neutral On All Subjects) |
(Which way is the bias?) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Ergo, Conervapedia will not, cannot, be 100% neutral on all subjects by necessity. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 18:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | Ergo, Conervapedia will not, cannot, be 100% neutral on all subjects by necessity. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 18:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | : If it is not neutral, could it at least declare which way its bias is leaning? American conservative (social? economic?) with a inerrant biblical standing. This was a criticism of wikipedia, and if it is not corrected here then this site cannot be any better than the site that is criticized. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 22:52, April 2, 2007
This a proposed policy or guideline. It is not official, and does not have wide acceptance. Please regard it as tentative and formative.
An encyclopedia which merits trust and respect will avoid taking sides on many or most controversies. When matters of fact or interpretation are in doubt, it will list all pertinent information and viewpoints, but avoiding drawing a conclusion.
On certain core issues, a conservative encyclopedia must take a stand. Matters of morality and ethics are paramount among these. A healthy respect for religion, particularly religious views held by large numbers of Americans, is also in order.
Ergo, Conervapedia will not, cannot, be 100% neutral on all subjects by necessity. --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
- If it is not neutral, could it at least declare which way its bias is leaning? American conservative (social? economic?) with a inerrant biblical standing. This was a criticism of wikipedia, and if it is not corrected here then this site cannot be any better than the site that is criticized. --Mtur 18:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)