Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal quotient"
Jeremiah4-22 (talk | contribs) |
Chrysogonus (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Fox News == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Quoting from article: ''Television news anchors on the major networks had a 100 percent liberal quotient until Fox emerged'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does this mean that Fox News is a Bad Thing is it upset the finely balanced (and therefore unbiased) 50:50 distribution of liberal and conservative anchors? | ||
Revision as of 23:10, April 5, 2007
What a fabulous Encyclopedia entry, with entries like this I don't see why no one is using this site?
Fantastic!! This means we now have a wonderful new method of assessing Conservative Bias, and for the first time it is measurable. To calculate the Conservative Quotient (CQ), all one has to do is to know the Liberal Quotient (LQ), then apply the formula: CQ = 1 - LQ.
A rating above zero presumably means that there is Conservative Bias?
Shurely Shome mishtake?
--CatWatcher 13:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
80%?
A source for that might do nicely. DrLib 14:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Liberal quotient of Conservapedia
Not counting the vandals, I'm genuinely curious what our liberal quotient is. MountainDew 14:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Most of the liberals here have been pretty disenfranchised, a few still prawl around the talk pages but they are not really "part of the group" so I don't think its very high. There is what, about 40 active users, maybe a dozen or so are liberals, but I think they have been pretty effectively shut down by bans, warnings, and condescending and insulting sysops. Etaroced 14:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Sneaky and deceptive as they are by nature, I suspect many liberals are unlikely to freely admit to being liberals, therefore making an accurate measurement of the liberal quotient here difficult to obtain. --Jeremiah4-22 16:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Fox News
Quoting from article: Television news anchors on the major networks had a 100 percent liberal quotient until Fox emerged
Does this mean that Fox News is a Bad Thing is it upset the finely balanced (and therefore unbiased) 50:50 distribution of liberal and conservative anchors?