Difference between revisions of "Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?"
Chrysogonus (Talk | contribs) |
(→Yes) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's [[I Have a Dream]] speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's [[I Have a Dream]] speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was '''NOT'''a conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
==It's a meaningless question== | ==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) | ||
Revision as of 19:14, April 9, 2007
| ! | THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting |
|
NO
Wikipedia is accused of having a left tilt, and the remedy is not a competing site with a right tilt, but a competing site with the hard truth, properly documented. Teresita 12:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes
If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --Ed Poor 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was NOTa conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.Rebiu 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
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) Chrysogonus 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
