[From a debate on whether or not "bias in Wikipedia hampers reliability."]
"I think that bias does at times impair Wikipedia's reliability. Truth be told I think that the same thing is beginning to occur on Conservapedia."
[Understatement of the Millenium!]
39 comments
From the Conservapedia entry on Evolution:
"The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the many flaws in the theory of evolution."
Bias at Conservapedia?
Surely you jest.
Bias?
On CONSERV - apedia?
You know, I think there's some soda in this Mountain Dew can, too!
!!! XD
Wikipedia actually has an error rate comparable to any other mainstream encyclopedia. Granted, anyone can go in there and screw with the Pikachu entry, but the important topics are rarely vandalized, and even then are quickly fixed.
Conservapedia, on the other hand, was actually created by a homeschool history teacher and his class (we should recognize the name Andrew Schlafly). The story goes that one of the children in Schlafly's class used the Common Era dating system in a paper, instead of the Christian-centric Anno Domini. Apparently, the child had been using Wikipedia for research.
Although Schlafly himself was originally a Wikipedia fan, he had a falling-out of sorts with them after editors on the site repeatedly fixed his changes to the article on the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings. Believing he had come across an inherent bias in Wikipedia, Schlafly, with the help of his students, used WikiMedia to create Conservapedia.
A quick glance at nearly any article on Conservapedia shows that the writers make no attempt to hide their bias. Skewed statistics, references to the Christian god, and attacks on Wikipedia abound. Schlafly clearly bears a vendetta against the original site, and uses his own version to put a "conservative" spin on everything. Bias is not "beginning to occur on Conservapedia," because that very bias was intended in the website's creation.
Most of my teachers say that Wikipedia is inaccurate. With the exception of my Biology teacher, Mr. Sharp.
I actually find it somewhat humorous: he tested the webpage. Because apparently, it takes someone with the education necessary to teach high school science classes to test the accuracy of a website.
According to him, he changed an article and it was fixed in about an hour.
Just a little anecdote. Observations like that coupled with the fact that Wiki has said that there is no definite basis on things my teachers have told me (like "Ring Around the Rosie" being about the bubonic plague) have caused me to ignore this "it's inaccurate mentality."
I also find it odd that just because it's a collaberation that anyone can contribute to, it is less trustworthy than one person's opinion.
As to those who say this isn't Fundie: Screw you.
I think both are biased - Wikipedia gets a little liberal bias, and Conservapedia gets a LOT of conservative bias.
How dare they bloody call themselves conservatives? Nothing like real conservatives at all.
And, no, I would say this isn't fundie. Probably a little bit religious, but certainly not fundie.
You're effectively saying that anyone with a slight conservative political stance is also morally conservative, and worse, to the point of being a fundie or a P.C.-loony.
REMEMBER POLITICAL, conservatism =/= MORAL conservatism.
There ARE other conservative parties besides the Republicunts.
So, more accurately, fuck YOU. Cheerio!
Sure Wikipedia might be inaccurate on certain subjects, but a little cross-referencing quickly sorts this out. And I find that, as has been stated earlier, wikipedia is just about as accurate as any other mainstream encyclopedia. And over here it is actually allowed to cite WP in school papers and such.
Oh, and about the other thing - it is in fact the first time I've heard about conservapedia, so I will have to check that one out. *shivers*
1) Wikipedia is about as accurate as many other encyclopedia, as has been previously stated, and you can check the citations if something seems off. It has a "bias" toward fucking reality, which, as the great prophet Stephen Colbert has told us, itself has a liberal bias.
Wikipedia can or cannot be a proper source of information, since anyone can edit the shit out of articles.
However on CONSERVapedia.
BEGINNING to occur? Isn't the whole thing with Conservapedia that it is biased, hence its name?
As anyone and everyone can edit in Wikipedia, the bias must be very sprawling, in all kinds of directions. Not that biased at all, really.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
