Conservapedia

[musicman]

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?

Again - exercise your options with my blessing, matts. But know that any door-to-door Wikipedia salesman is going to find me a tough sell, if he's trying to pass it off as the last word in objective, dispassionate fact.

 

[Larkinn]

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

I did not say it succeeds, I said it tries. Its GOAL is impartiality. Somehow I doubt Conservapedia or whatever it is called has lengthy discussions on particular articles featuring whether they are biased or not. They are biased...and for some reason everyones ok with that.

Wikipedia IS the Liberal Encyclopedia.

So only liberals change content on Wikipedia? I call bullshit.

 

[musicman]

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.

Those BASTARDS! Who do they think they are - trying to have a hand in the education of their children?

It also promotes non-secular bias which is the exact opposite of what the constitution teaches.

You're dreaming. The Constitution instructs central government to BUTT OUT of the matter of religion - which is the people's business. Secularism doesn't enter into it.

 

[mattskramer]

Wikipedia IS the Liberal Encyclopedia.

Why do you think the Cons started Conservapedia?

No. Wikipedia, as a whole, is neutral. It reflects to views of the general public since the general public can edit Wikipedia. The right does not like this. They want their agenda reflected above what is clearly neutral. If they don’t like what they see, even when what they see is really neutral, they will create their own reality.

 

[musicman]

I did not say it succeeds, I said it tries. Its GOAL is impartiality. Somehow I doubt Conservapedia or whatever it is called has lengthy discussions on particular articles featuring whether they are biased or not. They are biased...and for some reason everyones ok with that.

So, it's not what you actually do - but what you were TRYING to do - that matters? How do you hold anyone to provable standards that way?

So only liberals change content on Wikipedia? I call bullshit.

Just making note of the fact that you were responding to someone else's post here.

 

[musicman]

No. Wikipedia, as a whole, is neutral. It reflects to views of the general public since the general public can edit Wikipedia. The right does not like this. They want their agenda reflected above what is clearly neutral. If they don’t like what they see, even when what they see is really neutral, they will create their own reality.

Entirely subjective, matts - kind of like Wikipedia.

 

[Larkinn]

originally posted by music
So, it's not what you actually do - but what you were TRYING to do - that matters? How do you hold anyone to provable standards that way?

I don't have a problem with something if it fails. I won't access it, but trying and failing isn't something I think society should not encourage.

What I do think society should not encourage is obviously, and purposefully, biased sources. Hence me saying "I have a problem with it" not me saying "its unreliable".

Just making note of the fact that you were responding to someone else's post here

Yeah, sorry, I suck at saying who the OP was.

 

[mattskramer]

So only liberals change content on Wikipedia? I call bullshit.

That is a good question and they key to the way that I view these on-line encyclopedias. Practically anyone can put his “two cents” into wikipedia if he does not like the way that it explained something. The editor can be a conservative or a liberal. To what extent, if any, does conservapedia allow for this?

The conservatives were merely reacting to a liberal bias that does not exist. How can I show that it does not exist? It does not exist because anyone, including conservatives, is allowed to edit wikipedia or at least give a differing view on it.

 

[musicman]

I don't have a problem with something if it fails. I won't access it, but trying and failing isn't something I think society should not encourage.

What I do think society should not encourage is obviously, and purposefully, biased sources. Hence me saying "I have a problem with it" not me saying "its unreliable".

Bias is part and parcel of the human condition.

Yeah, sorry, I suck at saying who the OP was.

No sweat - I'm just trying to keep things clear.

 

[mattskramer]

Bias is part and parcel of the human condition.

We agree. – and the way that wikipedia compensates for it is to allow editing and commentary in its web site. [/QUOTE]

 

[Larkinn]

Bias is part and parcel of the human condition.

Lots of things are...and if they are negative, like bias is, we should struggle to overcome them. Not embrace it.

 

[Vintij]

Those BASTARDS! Who do they think they are - trying to have a hand in the education of their children?



You're dreaming. The Constitution instructs central government to BUTT OUT of the matter of religion - which is the people's business. Secularism doesn't enter into it.

What are you talking about, my claim was that conservapedia promotes non-secular sources. So what, everyone knows that. Its not an argument its a fact. Your sarcasm advocates the fact that you thing I am against freedom of religion. Which is wrong.

Secondly, I never said it was a bad thing to brain wash your children, I said conservapedia is one of those brain washing tools. Never did I say it should be removed or that people should not use it as a tool for education. People can read whatever they want and believe whatever they want.

And lastly, what do you think the word secular means? The first 5 amendments not only keep government out of religion (secular), but more importantly, religion out of government (secular). Read any letter written by Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, John Hancock, madison..etc.....on the subject of secularism, nearly every single one of our founding fathers was admantly for secular government in the constitution. Infact none of them were even religious aside from George Washington who rarely went to church and supported secular government, and Lincoln who admittedly converted to christianity for political reasons and supported secular government.

I dont get why accommodationists like you think that secularism is not in the constitution, and that keeping government out of religion is not a secular type legislation, but keeping religion out of government is. Oh ok I get it, your a conservative who wants nobody to tell you what god to pray too, yet you want the government to pass laws based on religious beliefs. Sorry to inform you but the constitution was drafted with no relation to any diety or god at all, thats called a secular document. Why? Because the founding fathers where afraid it would not only divide our nation even further (like it is today) they also believed that religious legislation is not flexible and can not adhere to future generations.

"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion"

Im not trying to ban thiesm, Im a diest myself. What Im trying to do is make it clear that separation of church and state is not a double standard.

 

[musicman]

We agree. – and the way that wikipedia compensates for it is to allow editing and commentary in its web site.

If true, Wikipedia is "compensating" for bias by indulging it to the fullest extent possible.

 

[musicman]

Lots of things are...and if they are negative, like bias is, we should struggle to overcome them. Not embrace it.

Why is bias inherently negative? I would only find it so if - say, a media outlet - then falsely represented itself as objective. This is the situation that existed with the mainstream media (specifically, the alphabet network news programs) before the advent of alternative media such as talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere. The negativity involved came not from the bias itself, but from the fact that it was dishonestly presented as objective, dispassionate journalism.

 

[mattskramer]

If true, Wikipedia is "compensating" for bias by indulging it to the fullest extent possible.

Yes – but it is doing so from all sides. If a liberal thinks that a word, that really has a neutral definition, has too much of a conservative slant, he can edit it or make a comment or add to a discussion about it. Later, if a conservative sees the word and thinks that it has a liberal-bias definition, he can add his bias. The conservative bias comments and liberal bias comments balance each other out. The result is a definition and explanation that reflects the sentiment of the general public.

Think of it like a cafeteria allowing customers to create their own soup. Some people might think that it is too acidic and add base. Some people might then think that it is too bland and add more acidic. If there are more pro-acid people interested in participating, the result will be a slightly acidic soup. If more anti-acid people are interested then the soup will end up being less acidic. Yet, in the end, it will reflect the sentiment of the people.

Perhaps this is a crude analogy, but I think that you understand my perspective. Let in as many people as you can. Let them toss in their ingredients. Then the finished product will be similar to the perspective of the general public – not just any one single person’s particular bias but a mix of biases that likely provide a balanced result.

 

[musicman]

What are you talking about, my claim was that conservapedia promotes non-secular sources. So what, everyone knows that. Its not an argument its a fact. Your sarcasm advocates the fact that you thing I am against freedom of religion. Which is wrong.

Secondly, I never said it was a bad thing to brain wash your children, I said conservapedia is one of those brain washing tools. Never did I say it should be removed or that people should not use it as a tool for education. People can read whatever they want and believe whatever they want.

And lastly, what do you think the word secular means? The first 5 amendments not only keep government out of religion (secular), but more importantly, religion out of government (secular). Read any letter written by Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, John Hancock, madison..etc.....on the subject of secularism, nearly every single one of our founding fathers was admantly for secular government in the constitution. Infact none of them were even religious aside from George Washington who rarely went to church and supported secular government, and Lincoln who admittedly converted to christianity for political reasons and supported secular government.

I dont get why accommodationists like you think that secularism is not in the constitution, and that keeping government out of religion is not a secular type legislation, but keeping religion out of government is. Oh ok I get it, your a conservative who wants nobody to tell you what god to pray too, yet you want the government to pass laws based on religious beliefs. Sorry to inform you but the constitution was drafted with no relation to any diety or god at all, thats called a secular document. Why? Because the founding fathers where afraid it would not only divide our nation even further (like it is today) they also believed that religious legislation is not flexible and can not adhere to future generations.

"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion"

Right - CONGRESS. In constitutional context, that means central government. It is the entire basis of self-rule; the people decide these matters for themselves, at the state level, through their duly elected representatives. "Keeping the government out of religion" means the federal government has no say in the matter one way or another. Except for a few, very specific responsibilities assigned to the federal level, the people ARE the government. Secularism doesn't enter into it; central government is not being instructed to be "secular" - it is being ordered to BUTT OUT ENTIRELY.

Im not trying to ban thiesm, Im a diest myself. What Im trying to do is make it clear that separation of church and state is not a double standard.

Let's be very clear on the meaning of "state" here. THE STATE is the federal government. THE STATES are the people. The people are recognized as having control over their everyday lives - matters like religion and abortion policy. To the degree we deviate from that design, we thwart the Constitution.

 

[musicman]

Yes – but it is doing so from all sides. If a liberal thinks that a word, that really has a neutral definition, has too much of a conservative slant, he can edit it or make a comment or add to a discussion about it. Later, if a conservative sees the word and thinks that it has a liberal-bias definition, he can add his bias. The conservative bias comments and liberal bias comments balance each other out. The result is a definition and explanation that reflects the sentiment of the general public.

Think of it like a cafeteria allowing customers to create their own soup. Some people might think that it is too acidic and add base. Some people might then think that it is too bland and add more acidic. If there are more pro-acid people interested in participating, the result will be a slightly acidic soup. If more anti-acid people are interested then the soup will end up being less acidic. Yet, in the end, it will reflect the sentiment of the people.

Perhaps this is a crude analogy, but I think that you understand my perspective. Let in as many people as you can. Let them toss in their ingredients. Then the finished product will be similar to the perspective of the general public – not just any one single person’s particular bias but a mix of biases that likely provide a balanced result.

Hardly useful as a "last word" citation of objective fact, though - and I think that's an important distinction to make.

 

[mattskramer]

Hardly useful as a "last word" citation of objective fact, though - and I think that's an important distinction to make.

As you said,

Bias is part and parcel of the human condition.

Therefore, who can give the "last word" citation of objective fact? Would you rely on a particular author from conservapedia and his bias to give you the last word or would you think through the collective information on wikipedia to give you the last word? Gee, In what can one trust and believe? Oh well. I think that I understand your perspective and that you understand mine. We just agree to disagree. I think that we kicked this topic around enough. I gotta get on to other things.

 

[Larkinn]

Why is bias inherently negative

If you have any interest in truth, intellectual honesty, or actually trying to find the anwsers to these political solutions, than I would assert that bias is inherently negative. If not, then sure, its fine.

If true, Wikipedia is "compensating" for bias by indulging it to the fullest extent possible.

The fullest extent possible?

Look at the definition of homosexuality from wikipedia. Does it say "homosexuality is moral"...or acceptable...or anything? No. It concentrates on merely the things that are facts. Hence little bias...unlike conservapedia.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

Amusing, why? These are merely the respective viewpoints of differing ideologies on a given topic -

Something that purports to be an encylopedia, presents facts. It doesn't present an ideological slant.