1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: + +
Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles? (view source)
Revision as of 02:51, June 2, 2008
, 02:51, June 2, 2008→It's a meaningless question
Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's ''hard truth, properly documented'' is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's ''hard truth, properly documented'' is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok but, does it make this site any more right than what it is? I know the man who made this and he's a hard christian so you can see where he's going wrong. At the threat of a liberal bias in the world...sir... you answer to that was a conservative bias? Eye for Eye? Interesting philsophy. It is true that you will come across many bias titles/articles but, if thats the case DONT SAY YOUR THE ONLY TRUTH! I hate there liberal examples... they have all the BAD of Liberal and 'good' of Conservative. Which actually isn't that great. Reasons why homeschooling is THE WAY. There's MANY reasons why it's wrong. As a person you aren't as ready for the world. Teens have trouble socially. Vaccines was one the arguments. ARE YOU KDDING ME! "I refute having a healthy child!" Ok, you just as controling as you say the government is and as bad as the reiligon you cling to. Talk about control. What makes conservatives more right than liberals? [[Unbiased2008]] 20:51, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
== Bias and Credibility ==
== Bias and Credibility ==
One of the good things that Conservapedia has done is to make Wikipedia look at some of its own practices and articles. However, this ability to critique Wikipedia and affect changes is completely dependent upon Conservapedia being regarded as a creditable site. As Conservapedia becomes more biased and more fringe (further from the open ideals of being able to edit articles on a wiki and with more extreme conservative rhetoric), its impact upon Wikipedia becomes lost and it becomes more of a target of mockery. It may not be possible to completely remove the conservative bias from the articles, but one would hope that this bias is not written into the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
One of the good things that Conservapedia has done is to make Wikipedia look at some of its own practices and articles. However, this ability to critique Wikipedia and affect changes is completely dependent upon Conservapedia being regarded as a creditable site. As Conservapedia becomes more biased and more fringe (further from the open ideals of being able to edit articles on a wiki and with more extreme conservative rhetoric), its impact upon Wikipedia becomes lost and it becomes more of a target of mockery. It may not be possible to completely remove the conservative bias from the articles, but one would hope that this bias is not written into the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)