Conservapedia

[Superlative]

----The definition of Homosexuality.

Wikipedia

Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation.

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


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

Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle between members of the same sex. It is more than simply a sexual act, it is going beyond the boundaries that God has setup for marriage; one man and one woman.

Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality


Amusing, to say the least.


This was on the Daily Show.

 

[Kagom]

Seems Conservapedia still takes years to load. But it used to have Wiki's definition.

 

[musicman]

----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.

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.

 

[Larkinn]

Wikipedia at least tries to be impartial...

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

 

[musicman]

Wikipedia at least tries to be impartial...

How can it? It's user/contributor-driven.

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

How can it NOT? It's user/contributor-driven.

 

[JeffWartman]

Wikipedia at least tries to be impartial...

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

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.

 

[Superlative]

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.

It is amusing because this is the Conservapedia DEFINITION given for Homosexuality.

Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle between members of the same sex. It is more than simply a sexual act, it is going beyond the boundaries that God has setup for marriage; one man and one woman.

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

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?

 

[Vintij]

Wikipedia at least tries to be impartial...

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

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.

 

[musicman]

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.

And Wikipedia - being user/contributor-driven - accomplishes this HOW?

 

[JeffWartman]

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?

The idea that wikipedia is objective is downright silly. Look around on there -- there is bias flowing all over that website, and that's to be expected, considering it's open for anyone to edit.

 

[musicman]

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.

And therein lies the rub.

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

Oh, it happens, matts:

It even allows for people to edit articles.

And therein lies the rub.

 

[Superlative]

And Wikipedia - being user/contributor-driven - accomplishes this HOW?

Wikipedia calls itself the Free encyclopedia, and thats how much you should trust anything from there.

I see links to Wikipedia here ALOT, and in all honesty it is more trusted and used for its impartiality than Conservapedia will ever be,

You can say Wiki is biased, but when it comes to giving a definition it rarely if ever tells me if what I am looking for is right or wrong in the eyes of God.

 

[mattskramer]

The idea that wikipedia is objective is downright silly. Look around on there -- there is bias flowing all over that website, and that's to be expected, considering it's open for anyone to edit.

Therefore one can easily get differing opinions on the terms and take it as a whole. Does Conservapedia allow for the positing of differing views? Who decides what the definitions are for words on its web site. No. I’ll take the exhaustiveness and flexibility of wikipedia over the close-minded restrictive bias of conservapedia any day.

 

[mattskramer]

Wikipedia calls itself the Free encyclopedia, and thats how much you should trust anything from there.

I see links to Wikipedia here ALOT, and in all honesty it is more trusted and used for its impartiality than Conservapedia will ever be,

You can say Wiki is biased, but when it comes to giving a definition it rarely if ever tells me if what I am looking for is right or wrong in the eyes of God.

 

[musicman]

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.

Then, exercise your preference, by all means. But, don't expect thinking persons to accept Wikipedia as any more objective or dispassionate that Conservapedia - or The Daily Show, for that matter.

 

[musicman]

Therefore one can easily get differing opinions on the terms and take it as a whole. Does Conservapedia allow for the positing of differing views? Who decides what the definitions are for words on its web site. No. I’ll take the exhaustiveness and flexibility of wikipedia over the close-minded restrictive bias of conservapedia any day.

Then, do so, by all means, matts. But, don't expect thinking persons to accept Wiki as the last word on anything.

 

[mattskramer]

Then, exercise your preference, by all means. But, don't expect thinking persons to accept Wikipedia as any more objective or dispassionate that Conservapedia - or The Daily Show, for that matter.

I already explained that since it allows for positing of different perspectives on the term, it is more objective and dispassionate. The web site that does not allow for differing views is, practically by definition, biased per its creator’s bias. The creator of wikipedia allows for dissenting views. Again, when will there be a liberal encyclopedia?

 

[Vintij]

Very true, wiki is not the source of all information. Just the gist of it. Thinking persons like myself, tend to use it as more of a reference than a source. Ofcourse conservapedia is not even that, its political propoganda aimed at attracting conservative familys to filter it as the high source of all information to their children. It also promotes non-secular bias which is the exact opposite of what the constitution teaches.

 

[Superlative]

when will there be a liberal encyclopedia?

Wikipedia IS the Liberal Encyclopedia.

Why do you think the Cons started Conservapedia?