Difference between revisions of "Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?"
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Really? Because there are several satire articles on here. I'd name them, but I'm just a dumb ol liberal. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 15:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT) | Really? Because there are several satire articles on here. I'd name them, but I'm just a dumb ol liberal. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 15:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered." How can you say that? All that's here is politics and religion. And how can a website set up to be a conservative encyclopedia claim to be unbiased? | ||
Revision as of 19:52, May 26, 2007
Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them. Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered.Rebiu 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I disagree. I see several articles about people who never existed, but sound like they might have. Case in point, all the Spanish profanity on the Cambodia page that sat there for over a month until I decided to let everyone in on the joke. Czolgolz 13:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- how does Wikipedia do it?Jaques 13:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia has thousands of times more users...and hence is much more likely to notice factual errors. Conservapdia has a small (as of now) user base, and hence, articles may go weeks, or even months without anyone noticing incorrect dates, spellings, facts, and blatant fabrications. Czolgolz 13:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.Jaques 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like this, or this, or his contributions here. When I first read the first of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it was a liberal satire. Chrysogonus 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- I don't think liberal satirists are talented enough to produce something like that, which takes someone a bit special. --Jeremiah4-22 15:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Really? Because there are several satire articles on here. I'd name them, but I'm just a dumb ol liberal. Czolgolz 15:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
"Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered." How can you say that? All that's here is politics and religion. And how can a website set up to be a conservative encyclopedia claim to be unbiased?
