[besson3c]

My curiosity was piqued since the guy that runs this site was on the Colbert Report tonight, so I went to the site (http://conservapedia.com).

WTF? First of all, the logo is an American flag. This is supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedia about the world that is simultaneously patriotic to America? What does America have to do with being an encyclopedia?

The other stuff on the homepage: something about Ronald Reagan, a cartoon poking fun at the Copenhagen Climate Change summit, Evolution, the TEA party... Again, WTF? The "trustworthy encyclopedia" centers around American conservative politics, okay... If you want to make a site about American conservative politics, great, but how on Earth does a site about American politics (conservative or liberal) become an encyclopedia? If you want to write up an article on Evolution, why does it need to be associated with American conservatism to be factually correct/encyclopedia like?

The dictionary definition of encyclopedia:

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

Maybe this definition needs to be added to the Conservapedia? I guess they would say that their site covers "comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge", but then why is it called the "trustyworthy encyclopedia" and not the "trustworthy encyclopedia of all things American and conservative"? Why are they comparing themselves to the Wikipedia? Wouldn't comprehensive in its nature include both the American conservative and non American conservative versions?

Can anybody point out all of this liberal bias in the Wikipedia that prompted this?

[besson3c]

Heh... The Wikipedia article on the Conservapedia is amusing

[besson3c]

I like this part in the Wikipedia article:

Conservapedia has been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective.[4][31] and Theopedia, a wiki covering the Bible.[43] Some writers[who?] have compared it with new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones, such as MyChurch, a Christian version of social networking site MySpace, and GodTube, a Christian version of video site YouTube.[7]

Hehe... MyChurch and GodTube. These sites don't seem to exist anymore, but that's pretty funny.

[Chuckit]

When you hold an opinion very strongly, things that fail to affirm that opinion often look biased.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

When you hold an opinion very strongly, things that fail to affirm that opinion often look biased.

Yeah, no kidding. Just don't tell me that you're encyclopedia, is all I'm asking. Call yourself an encyclopedia of all things American conservative, fine, but to actually be an encyclopedia you have to display not only the American conservative viewpoint, but the viewpoint that is the most widely accepted, and if there is dispute over what this is, all sides so that the article is actually encyclopedia-like rather than an editorial.

Every time I think I've become well acquainted with crazy dogma I'm hit over the head with more dogma I didn't even know existed.

[Doofy]

To be fair, Wiki has been a little left-leaning in the past. Not so bad at the moment, but about two years ago it was blatantly obvious. A good example is within the Wiki article:

He felt the need to start the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred.

That pissed me off too. The whole of the western world has used "AD" for the last however long, yet Wiki users felt the need to turn it into "CE".

Still, neither Wikipedia or Conservapedia are anywhere near as good as the soon to be launched Bessopedia.

[Chuckit]

It's not Wiki users; all of academia uses CE rather than AD. I guess it's like the metric system and Kelvin temperatures.

[besson3c]

Bessopedia, huh? Would that be devoted to explaining how to be the best there is, and how to kick ass all over the place and take names?

Yippee Kayyeee mother****ers!

[CharlesS]

Guys, of course Wikipedia is liberally biased. Everyone knows that anything that isn't sufficiently propagandistic to make you feel like you're living in a George Orwell book when you read it is liberally biased.

It's kind of like the label of "counter-revolutionary" back in Stalin's day.

[BadKosh]

Wiki is not a very good reference anyway. Thinking it is unbiased and honest is telling enough.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It's not Wiki users; all of academia uses CE rather than AD.

It's already assumed that both lean left, so that's no surprise.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hehe... MyChurch and GodTube. These sites don't seem to exist anymore, but that's pretty funny.

Wut?

MyChurch: Social Networking for Churches

tangle.com (formerly GodTube) is a Christian social networking site

[Paco500]

Why is CE/BCE vs. BC/AD a liberal/conservative thing? To have a common global standard for dates on a globe which the majority of residents don't mark the birth of Christ as the single most significant event in history seems pretty logical and not politically motivated. Add to that most (christian and otherwise) scholarship puts the birth of Christ somewhere between 7 and 1 BC- it's not even a good numbering system for the christians of the world.

Unless conservative only equals christian- I just don't get it.

I'm curious what non-christian conservatives on this board make of the argument.

[Wiskedjak]

Damn the Conservative elite encyclopedia industry and their conservative agenda that they're trying to shove down our throats!

[SpaceMonkey]

What's the point of calling Wikipedia biased anyway? Isn't the solution just to log on and start editing stuff (within the limits of common sense, of course)?

[Jawbone54]

I snickered when I saw this in Conservapedia's Wikipedia entry:

The Guardian of the United Kingdom has referred to the Conservapedia's politics as "right-wing".

Anyone who didn't pick that up in the name Conservapedia is lacking some basic observational skills.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I snickered when I saw this in Conservapedia's Wikipedia entry:



Anyone who didn't pick that up in the name Conservapedia is lacking some basic observational skills.

'Conservative' means different things in different countries and isn't always correlated with 'right-wing'.

[BadKosh]

Ho Hum, another besson conservative bashing thread.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I guess it's like the metric system and Kelvin temperatures.

Well, not unless 30cm = 30' and 10C = 10K.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Why is CE/BCE vs. BC/AD a liberal/conservative thing? To have a common global standard for dates on a globe which the majority of residents don't mark the birth of Christ as the single most significant event in history seems pretty logical and not politically motivated.

Well, that'd make sense if the BCE/CE reference point wasn't the birth of Christ.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

To be fair, Wiki has been a little left-leaning in the past. Not so bad at the moment, but about two years ago it was blatantly obvious.

Yeah, just a little biased to the Left. Just a tad. The entry on "community organizer" is a good example. It's been edited to take the "walking on water" part out since the election.

Wikipedia is the ultimate propaganda site (right behind AP I guess) because it smacks of authority to the illiterati out there.

I wish folks would spend their time engaging Wikipedia and correcting it with cites rather than creating these far out nutcase sites that nobody will ever sponsor or read. There's far more to be had from intelligent discourse, and Wiki corrections are much more likely to reach the eyes of the ignorant than is some specialty site. That's how it works, unfortunately.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yeah, just a little biased to the Left. Just a tad. The entry on "community organizer" is a good example. It's been edited to take the "walking on water" part out since the election.

Wikipedia is the ultimate propaganda site (right behind AP I guess) because it smacks of authority to the illiterati out there.

What web-based information sites do you recommend that are less biased/more neutral than Wikipedia?
That would be good information to know. Thanks!

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, that'd make sense if the BCE/CE reference point wasn't the birth of Christ.

A. It's not- at least the vast majority of scholarship has declared it inaccurate.
B. Ok, change AD to ABC or something. This is not the 2009th year of most people's lord.
C. It would be silly to change the calendar now. It is not silly now that most of the rest of the world is standardizing on the Gregorian calendar to make the nomenclature more universal.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

A. It's not- at least the vast majority of scholarship has declared it inaccurate.

Accurate or not, that's the reference point.

Originally Posted by Paco500 

B. Ok, change AD to ABC or something. This is not the 2009th year of most people's lord.

How's about just "2009" and "230 BC"? Don't really need a modifier on positive numbers, do we, else we'd write everything with a "+" in front of it.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What web-based information sites do you recommend that are less biased/more neutral than Wikipedia?
That would be good information to know. Thanks!

I can't, that's the problem. There isn't some encompassing list of stable sites that have both sides of every issue right there hammered out for ya -- you have to be able to read all of it and apply your brain to it. You have to be able to evaluate the voracity of those sources yourself, using (sadly) other sources. It's very time-consuming and tedious, and not for the faint of heart.

Or you can use Britannica I guess, even online maybe. They've got a reputation to maintain and they have some accountability. Wikipedia has neither.

Thankfully, Wikipedia mainly deals with trivialities -- Capt Kirk's hometown and such. For that, it's perfect.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How's about just "2009" and "230 BC"? Don't really need a modifier on positive numbers, do we, else we'd write everything with a "+" in front of it.

Actually, I kinda like the idea of '2009' and '-230'. Of course I also think they should change the way the Capital Beltway works so that instead of the 'inner-loop' and the 'outer-loop' there's clockwise and anti-clockwise, and rather than arbitrary numbers, the exits should be labeled as their angle in radians.

'Yeah, get on the beltway going anti-clockwise and then take exit 1.6π/2.'

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I wish folks would spend their time engaging Wikipedia and correcting it with cites rather than creating these far out nutcase sites that nobody will ever sponsor or read. There's far more to be had from intelligent discourse, and Wiki corrections are much more likely to reach the eyes of the ignorant than is some specialty site. That's how it works, unfortunately.

Apparently, he created Conservapedia because the Wikipedia editors kept reversing his edits there. Given the content of the articles on Conservapedia, I think it's not too hard to imagine what the edits he tried to make to Wikipedia looked like.

The thing that made my jaw hit the floor is "The Conservative Bible Project." He's actually trying to censor the Bible for "liberal bias" — including removing the story about Jesus saving the adulteress from being stoned and saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and also the quote "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do," because somehow those passages have "liberal bias." What the hell?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The thing that made my jaw hit the floor is "The Conservative Bible Project." He's actually trying to censor the Bible for "liberal bias" — including removing the story about Jesus saving the adulteress from being stoned and saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and also the quote "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do," because somehow those passages have "liberal bias." What the hell?

Seems like a perfectly typical example of how most people's religious beliefs work. This guy just flaunts it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

the Capital Beltway

Is that like a cheap colonial version of the M25?

[The Final Dakar]

The term I'd use is unabashed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The thing that made my jaw hit the floor is "The Conservative Bible Project." He's actually trying to censor the Bible for "liberal bias" — including removing the story about Jesus saving the adulteress from being stoned and saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and also the quote "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do," because somehow those passages have "liberal bias."

OK, the guy is nuts.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The term I'd use is unabashed.

So, the Capital Beltway is an unabashed colonial version of the M25?

[SpaceMonkey]

Yesterday there was an impressive car fire that completely shut down the Outer Loop during rush hour. It was fantastic.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What's the point of calling Wikipedia biased anyway? Isn't the solution just to log on and start editing stuff (within the limits of common sense, of course)?

The creator of Conservapedia claims that when he does his stuff is deleted.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, the Capital Beltway is an unabashed colonial version of the M25?

Post above yours.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Why is CE/BCE vs. BC/AD a liberal/conservative thing? To have a common global standard for dates on a globe which the majority of residents don't mark the birth of Christ as the single most significant event in history seems pretty logical and not politically motivated. Add to that most (christian and otherwise) scholarship puts the birth of Christ somewhere between 7 and 1 BC- it's not even a good numbering system for the christians of the world.

So AD doesn't mark the birth of Christ, and CE doesn't mark the birth of Christ, and in fact they're 100% identical except that AD has seniority, and somehow this makes CE superior?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I can't, that's the problem. There isn't some encompassing list of stable sites that have both sides of every issue right there hammered out for ya -- you have to be able to read all of it and apply your brain to it. You have to be able to evaluate the voracity of those sources yourself, using (sadly) other sources. It's very time-consuming and tedious, and not for the faint of heart.

Or you can use Britannica I guess, even online maybe. They've got a reputation to maintain and they have some accountability. Wikipedia has neither.

Thankfully, Wikipedia mainly deals with trivialities -- Capt Kirk's hometown and such. For that, it's perfect.

Huh, I am surprised you mentioned the Britannica as a reputable source. In a 2005 study it was deemed to be just slightly more accurate overall than Wikipedia in terms of number of errors found in a random sampling of articles. In other words, Wikipedia is just slightly less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Anyway, why do you say "sadly" when talking about evaluating the veracity of different sources? That's how the whole process of knowledge acquisition and dissemination works. You have to gather information from multiple sources as their is no single definitive source of information that can serve as an absolute reference for accuracy. There is no single "great Book of Answers" whose accuracy is indisputable, nor would I want to exist such a book. Life would be no fun if we had all the answers written down in some book and didn't have to search out the answers for ourselves.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Post above yours.

I know. I'm just pointing out the laziness inherent in not clicking the "quote" button.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Is that like a cheap colonial version of the M25?

I suppose you could say that. I don't really have any experience with the M25, so I couldn't really say how they compare. Unless the M25 already numbers exits in radians, in which case it is definitely more awesome than the Beltway.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Is that like a cheap colonial version of the M25?

As the capital beltway was established in the 50s and the M25 didn't begin construction until the 70s- no- I'd call it the forward thinking design inspiration of the M25.

I think it even had debilitating congestion years before the brits came up with the notion.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yesterday there was an impressive car fire that completely shut down the Outer Loop during rush hour. It was fantastic.

I spent 14 years in DC and you could not pay me to go back and live there. The traffic was one of my top three things I hated about DC. It's absolutely miserable during the best of conditions and utterly soul-crushing during the worst of conditions. If I never again in my life drive another mile on the Capital Beltway I will be OK with that.
(Sadly, I have so many friends in the DC area I know that some time in my future I will be driving on the Beltway again.)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I know. I'm just pointing out the laziness inherent in not clicking the "quote" button.

The real laziness was not going back to fix it.

But I'm perfectly willing to make two additional posts about it.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I suppose you could say that. I don't really have any experience with the M25, so I couldn't really say how they compare. Unless the M25 already numbers exits in radians, in which case it is definitely more awesome than the Beltway.

Well, the M25 is actually designed on the principles of an ancient occult rune, such that all the traffic heading clockwise generates evil and all the counter-clockwise generates good. Thus the balance of the good and evil in the UK is preserved for all time. When anything bad happens to the UK, it's because there's been a traffic hold up of some description on the counter-clockwise side.
That's a fact. They should put it in Conservapedia.

[besson3c]

I feel like writing in something about the Bessopedia to see how long it would take to get deleted...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, the M25 is actually designed on the principles of an ancient occult rune, such that all the traffic heading clockwise generates evil and all the counter-clockwise generates good. Thus the balance of the good and evil in the UK is preserved for all time. When anything bad happens to the UK, it's because there's been a traffic hold up of some description on the counter-clockwise side.
That's a fact. They should put it in Conservapedia.

Been a while since I've read Good Omens, forgot it was the M25!

[besson3c]

I like this page on Hollywood values:

Hollywood values - Conservapedia

Generalizing a very large population is always a good idea if you are going for accuracy!

[The Final Dakar]

Apparently all musicians are from Hollywood.

[sek929]

All the hollywood values can easily fit any politician as well.


ZZzzzzzz....

[SpaceMonkey]

Here's a fun game. Spot the Hollywood values versus the American values:

[besson3c]

So where is the liberal bias in the Wikipedia anyway, other than the dating thing (which doesn't seem like much of a smoking gun to me)?