Conservapedia

[ImaginalDisc]

I think this is my second or third thread on a new Wiki, but here's "Conservapedia" an allegedly an alternative to Wikipedia for the American Christian Right Wing.

They have a page accusing Wikipedia of liberal bias and include some of the following

Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent.

Their article on faith with a blurb on the main page reading:

Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions.

Their article on Evolution contains real howlers, though. Such as

Evolutionists have no real evidence that macroevolution occurs and there is no consensus on how it allegedly occurs. . .

Of course, you can either laugh or cry on their article on the ACLU:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was run for its first 30 years by a non-Christian socialist named Roger Baldwin, who helped found it in 1920 in response to the Espionage Act and Sedition Act. Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."

No bias at all is detectable in their article on the Boy Scouts:

The Boys Scouts of America was founded on February 8, 1910. The movement began two years earlier in England, where Sir Robert Baden-Powell founded it. He had been a hero of the South African Boer Wars.

Empahsis added.

Really, read it and weep.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Would you explain the bias in the last quote as B-P had been a hero of the Second Boer War 1899-1902 (?).

 

[Beerina]

No bias at all is detectable in their article on the Boy Scouts:

The Boys Scouts of America was founded on February 8, 1910. The movement began two years earlier in England, where Sir Robert Baden-Powell founded it. He had been a hero of the South African Boer Wars.

I must admit I'm not up on my Boy Scout history. What is biased in this?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Would you explain the bias in the last quote as B-P had been a hero of the Second Boer War 1899-1902 (?).

Because "hero" is not a neutral term. By comparison, the Wiipedia article on him begins with:

Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell OM, GCMG, GCVO, KCB (22 February 1857 – 8 January 1941), also known as B-P, was a Lieutenant-General in the British Army, writer, and founder of the Scouting Movement.

It also details the Siege of Mafeking, which conservapedia doesn't, without resorting to glowing praise.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Well, he was regarded as a hero. Also he was about the only high-ranking British officer who wasn't rubbish. Yes, like many of his day he could/should have treated the blacks under him much better, but he was innovative, resourceful and clever in many ways in the defence of Mafeking.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, he was regarded as a hero. Also he was about the only high-ranking British officer who wasn't rubbish. Yes, like many of his day he could/should have treated the blacks under him much better, but he was innovative, resourceful and clever in many ways in the defence of Mafeking.

That is an opinion, not an objective fact. It's pretty hypocritical of Conservapedia to accuse Wikipedia of bias and to call a fellow a "hero."

 

[Mr Clingford]

It's an opinion based on some research of the Boer War! Also, Wiki article on the siege says that the siege turned BP into a 'national hero'.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It's an opinion based on some research of the Boer War! Also, Wiki article on the siege says that the siege turned BP into a 'national hero'.

Then the phrase, "he was regarded as a national hero" would have been fine.

 

[Mr Clingford]

I think your other quotes go a long way to justifying your opinion, but I think you over-reached with regard to BP.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think your other quotes go a long way to justifying your opinion, but I think you over-reached with regard to BP.

"He had been a hero" is not an unbiased statement. However, if you just compare the Wikipedia BSA article to the Conservapedia article, I think it's pretty clear which one is more neutral.

 

[Malachi151]

Is "hero of the South African Boer Wars" kind of like saying "hero of the Blitzkrieg".....

 

[Mr Clingford]

I agree with you on the bias in the two articles on the BSA but I think BP was not only seen as a hero but actually was - eg, read about his many clever ideas in the defence of the town.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Is "hero of the South African Boer Wars" kind of like saying "hero of the Blitzkrieg".....

Perhaps, yes, in the sense of how well a soldier did his job. No, for invoking Godwin!

 

[Beerina]

Well, he was regarded as a hero. Also he was about the only high-ranking British officer who wasn't rubbish. Yes, like many of his day he could/should have treated the blacks under him much better, but he was innovative, resourceful and clever in many ways in the defence of Mafeking.

Exactly. He was considered a hero at the time, even if people today wouldn't consider him such because the war was disrespectful. The phrase, perhaps written as "considered a hero of the war" would be a legitimate entry. Bias is shown on Wikipedia indeed, if this is the case.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Oh boy, can't we all just get along?

Seriously, though, sometimes Wikipedia is biased, and that depends solely on the editors, and more often than not people will try to fix it. My problem with Wikipedia is that it's become like usenet 2.0 with edit wars and it's just silly. I don't consider it a great source of information simply because who knows what state of accuracy an article is on any given day. I don't want to have to read the talk pages to determine this each and every time. I'll visit it for quick synopsis and to find links to real information.

I just think it's funny that Conservapedia is answering this perceived bias with.............A WHOLE LOT OF BIAS! At least Wikipedia will address POV issues and you do indeed find NPOV articles there. I am skeptical about Conservapedia being willing to do the same.

 

[hgc]

I think Conservapedia has been invaded by pranksters. But no matter what absurdities they plant, it's still hard to tell it apart from the real entries.

Read the entry on the Pacific-northwest arborial octopus.

Also, it's been pretty near impossible to open Conservapedia since its existence became widely known. They really need to move their server off that 386 box.

 

[Malachi151]

Perhaps, yes, in the sense of how well a soldier did his job. No, for invoking Godwin!

Well, the Boer war was supposedly the birth of the modern concentration camp....

 

[Mr Clingford]

Well, the Boer war was supposedly the birth of the modern concentration camp....

That was my understanding until recently when someone said that the Spaniards, I think, had been doing something before then.

Also, perhaps BP was a hero like the Battle of Britain pilots, then!

 

[Beerina]

From their page on Wikipedia biases:

There is a strong anti-American and anti-capitalism bias on Wikipedia. In its description of the post-war Bell Trade Act of 1946, in which the United States gave the Philippines $800 million in exchange for some free trade provisions, Wikipedia omits any mention of the $800 million dollars and instead lambasts the "wrath of Father Capitalism."[4] The agreement was approved by popular vote on the Philippines, but the Wikipedia article omits that fact also.

Well, I looked. The current article, little more than a stub, notes:

1. Both the US and Phillipines Congresses approved it

2. Does not mention an obviously biased statment like "the wrath of Father Capitalism", which, as I have seen on other Wiki pages, would quickly be fixed by editors striking it as vandalism, or at least as hopelessly POV.

So somebody at Wikipedia is listening. However, it's possible for changes to be made to lesser-tread articles that might go unnoticed for months or years. While that particular author might be biased, that it went unchanged merely means nobody reviewed and corrected it. This ain't exactly the "current happenings in Anna Nicole's life page".

 

[Beerina]

It's also clear that they don't understand Wikipedia is largely an experiment:

9. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

...

12.Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song".[7] Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.

Wikipedia is exploring what an open, freely-editable encyclopedia would turn out like. That Wikipedia ends up being newslike, with rapidly changing pages for things related to current events (Anna Nicole's page was up to hundreds of edits a day two weeks ago, probably down to "only" about 20 or so now) is an interesting development.

Another phenomena not predicted was that people would create pages on things of interest to them. See that the Phillipines thing he mentioned gets a few sentences, but you can find pages discussing every single Star Trek or Simpsons episode in gory detail. When shows like Lost or Heroes are on, people edit the page, updating it virtually live as the current episode is shown and more facts are revealed.

Complain if you want, but that's one of the things people are figuring out about Wikipedia. I do note that editors will remove pages about people who are not even remotely famous.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.

You must realize that, what many Creationists believe are "facts against evolution" are not generally considered valid criticisms.

There are many pages that discuss these criticisms in depth.* You should perhaps persuade them first, then, once gaining general acceptance, it would be accepted by Wikipedia editors.

There are even some pro-Creationism/ID pages that discuss anti-evolution criticisms, and dismiss some criticisms of evolution as invalid. That shows some hope and honesty expressed by some Creationists.