Conservapedia

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Superlative, Jun 28, 2007.

  1. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    ----The definition of Homosexuality.

    Wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality


    ---According to Conservapedia, Homosexuality is defined as thus:

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality


    Amusing, to say the least.


    This was on the Daily Show.
     
  2. Kagom
    Offline

    Kagom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,161
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Vicksburg, MS
    Ratings:
    +141
    Seems Conservapedia still takes years to load. But it used to have Wiki's definition.
     
  3. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Amusing, why? These are merely the respective viewpoints of differing ideologies on a given topic - unless you mean to infer that Wikipedia is somehow a reliably objective and dispassionate source of information. It's not - any more so than is Jon Stewart.
     
  4. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Wikipedia at least tries to be impartial...

    The idea that a source of information purposefully puts in bias is very unappealing to me.
     
  5. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    How can it? It's user/contributor-driven.

    How can it NOT? It's user/contributor-driven.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. JeffWartman
    Offline

    JeffWartman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,309
    Thanks Received:
    101
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Suburban Chicago
    Ratings:
    +101
    You act as if Wikipedia is one single entity that has articles. It's anything but.

    It's incredibly biased if you follow what goes on over at Wikipedia.
     
  7. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    It is amusing because this is the Conservapedia DEFINITION given for Homosexuality.

    Which is actually, as you said a "ViewPoint," or better yet an "Opinion," not a "Definition."

    And if you read the little print under the Conservapedia logo, it says, "The trustworthy Encyclopedia"

    I dont know about you, but I prefer to seperate "facts" from "opinions" when giving a Definition.
     
  8. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Conservapedia is just another silly example of conservative throwing a hissy-fit. Wkipedia’s definition does not say that homosexuality is right or wrong. It does not say that it is good or bad. It simply defines it. Therefore, wikipedia is very objective. On the other hand, conservapedia throws in some value-added terms. Also, wikipedia provides room for disagreement and discussion. When the neutrality of a term is in dispute, wikipedia allows for comments for people voicing their positions. It even allows for people to edit articles.

    No. When it comes to objectivity and fairness, wikipedia easily beats conservadepia. When is there going to be a liberapedia?
     
  9. Vintij
    Offline

    Vintij Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,040
    Thanks Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Anaheim, CA
    Ratings:
    +105
    I agree but dont worry about conservapedia, its not a real source of information. I mean, if you do get into an argument with a creationist, and they actually cite "conservapedia" as one of their sources. Do you really think anyone will take that creationist seriously ever again? I mean seriously, its has bible verses for gods sake. I guess conservapedia left out the part in the bible that says you are suppose to burn gays to death. It looks like they left out the "when to stone your family to death" part as well in deuteronomy.
     
  10. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    And Wikipedia - being user/contributor-driven - accomplishes this HOW?
     

Share This Page