51
edits
Changes
Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 21:39, March 31, 2007
, 21:39, March 31, 2007no edit summary
: Polls are obviously relevant to assessments of neutrality or bias. Also, polls are obviously relevant to rebut a claim of "widely accepted" or "prevailing view." --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 06:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
: Polls are obviously relevant to assessments of neutrality or bias. Also, polls are obviously relevant to rebut a claim of "widely accepted" or "prevailing view." --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 06:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
== This page makes Conservapedia look BAD ==
I agree that the "BCE/CE" part should be omitted. NOT allowing users to use EITHER of them would be an example of bias. But there are deeper problems with this page. For one, this page is outdated and now inaccurate. "Great Flood" redirects the user to a disambiguation page which includes "Noah's Flood," not to Deluge (mythology). This is unforgivable in a website that so harshly criticizes another website for perceived factual innacuracies.
Also, conservapedia is missing FAR more articles than wikipedia. Admonishing wikipedia for not having an article on certain esoteric subjects is highly hypocritical of a website that doesn't even have an article on the human liver.
Criticizing wikipedia for an occasional unscholarly tone is equally hypocritical. How about this quote from Conservapedia? "Rush Limbaugh is one the greatest men alive in the US of A (God Bless it and peace be upon it). A man with a visionary ability to see Truth through the fog of the Liberal Agenda, I personally pray for Him every night. I wish he would run for President."
Finally, I would abstain from criticizing individual wikipedia articles. Anyone who reads this article will compare the articles mentioned to their conservapedia counterparts. Not to be overly negative, but for the most part I think it's fair to say the wikipedia articles are vastly superior and more exhaustive. If you disagree, look up "Johnny Appleseed."
I would personally love to see this page deleted. It's probably apparent I'm not a conservative, but I hate to see websites making themselves look bad, and this page makes conservapedia look like a hypocritical bully.