Changes

From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to at least two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who would create created this site:

'''First''', in response to the argument that Wikipedia can not be regarded as *a proper encyclopedia because of its percieved perceived liberal biason Wikipedia, it is important with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to distinguish one thing. Wikipedia is available around be six times more liberal than the worldAmerican public, and is immensely popular in many nations all across *the world, feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not just Americabefitting a website designing itself as an encyclopaedia. Many people from each of these nations contribute to Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the siteword "duh", which is best evidenced singles by the many different language versions available. However, since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English Wikipedia, it is that which I will limit my discussion toobscure music bands and arcane British royalty.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I would first like to make it clear that I am not saying that attempting to promote Wikipedia or demean Conservapedia is wrongin any way. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are subjective, I would like to take these arguments as regards these two features and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However I do argue against discuss the seeming implication flaws I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as see in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia home page regarding the Chris Benoit article on Wikipediathem, and I hope that the biased liberal viewpoints edited in by one user reflects other individuals on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspcioussite, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell whether they agree with me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply or not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information online, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to conduct this actdiscussion fairly.

In conclusion'''First''', I would argue that in response to the assertion argument that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is can not correct to use, be regarded as a proper encyclopaedia because of its perceived liberal bias, it does not take into account the is important to distinguish one fact that both . Wikipediais available around the world, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people is immensely popular in many nations all across the world. I would also argue that the percieved imbalance does globe, not actually exist just in a global contextAmerica. It has Many people from each of these nations contribute to be remembered that America the site, which is just one part of best evidenced by the worldmany different language versions available. However, and since Conservapedia's argument refers primarily to the English-language Wikipedia, it is that American conservatives are just one part of its populationwhich I will limit my discussion to.

'''Secondly''', as regards the The assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopedia, I would like is six times more liberal than the American public does not appear to make take into account that Wikipedia is used and edited by people all over the followinf argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopedia: new information about certain topics can be added easilyNaturally, pages are monitored to ensure even if Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the information on them American public (I'm not taking sides), that is up only because it is contributed to date, and by other people besides the volume citizens of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopedia, or even a paper encyclopedia set could ever offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabeticallyUnited States." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this I would argue that makes it so popular. While individuals on Conservapedia users need to take this into account, also as regards their own site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" which is attracting attention and 19th-century Vice-chancellor contributors outside of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopediathe United States. Promoting the American viewpoint is perfectly acceptable, I would argue but it must be remembered by everyone that there is a whole world outside the only reason for United States. Wikipedia reflects this perception is the traditional image of an encyclopedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, relgious, political and social information was included in concise articlesso must Conservapedia.

As regards the many examples listed on the "Examples of Bias on Wikipedia" page, I am not saying that Conservapedia is wrong. All articles on all wikis (including Conservapedia) are victim to the subjective viewpoint of the author, and therefore bias and falsity are obviously going to appear. However, I do argue against the seeming implication I have seen on the aforementioned page, as well as in a news story which recently appeared on the Conservapedia Main Page that a negative, or percieved negative element edited in by one user reflect on Wikipedia as a whole. The news piece details the fact that the Wikipedia article on Chris Benoit carried information on the recent tragedy surrounding the Benoit family before the police were informed. While the fact that the information was released on to Wikipedia in this fashion is disturbing and suspicious, the tone of the news piece (I regret that I cannot find it as it has been replaced by more recent news, if someone could tell me how to recall it I would be grateful) suggested that Wikipedia as a whole was suspect in this event. This is simply not the case. If one individual posted suspicious information on to one page, that does not and can not mean that every user on Wikipedia is an accomplice to this act, as was implied by the news piece. In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use on the site, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the perceived imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population. '''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopaedia, I would like to make the following argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopaedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopaedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopaedia, or even a paper encyclopaedia set could ever hope to offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopaedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopaedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the adherence to the traditional image of an encyclopaedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, religious, political, historical and social information was included in concise articles because of realistic restraints about the size of the book (or set of books). As methods of retrieving information have improved developed greatly, I would think it natural that online encyclopedias encyclopaediae such as Wikipedia (and perhaps in the future, Conservapedia) include such varied information. Rather than thinking of such sites as "encyclopedias", I would argue that they have more become compendiums of knowledge, a store for the world's rich and diverse information. Obviously being open to editing can result in flaws, errors, bias and occasional hoax articles (indeed Conservapedia is guilty of some of these, however that is for a different discussion); but I believe that the good aspects of any online encyclopediaencyclopaedia, be it Wikipedia, Conservapedia or even Wookiepedia outweigh the bad ones.