wikipedia is too liberal... apparently

darkcrow

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2024435,00.html

Rightwing website challenges 'liberal bias' of Wikipedia


Bobbie Johnson, technology correspondent
Thursday March 1, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


Not even Harry Potter can escape what the founders of Conservapedia have described as the 'anti-Christian' values of Wikipedia

It has been attacked many times in its short life, most notably in the form of bombardments from a former aide to Robert F Kennedy and the editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica. But now the online reference site Wikipedia has a new foe: evangelical Christians.
A website founded by religious activists in the US aims to counter what they claim is "liberal bias" on Wikipedia, the open encyclopaedia that has become one of the most popular sites on the web.

The founders of Conservapedia.com say that the site offers a "much-needed alternative" to Wikipedia, which they believe is "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".
Although entries on Wikipedia are open for anyone to edit, conservative campaigners say that they are unable to make changes to articles on the site because of inherent bias by its global team of volunteer editors. Instead they have chosen to build a clone, which they hope will promote Christian values.

"I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, told the Guardian. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."

Among his criticisms listed on Conservapedia, Mr Schlafly explains how many Wikipedia articles often use British spelling instead of American English and says that it "refuses" to give enough credit to Christianity for the Renaissance. "Facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored," he continues.

Mr Schlafly, an attorney by day, is the son of prominent American conservative Phyllis Schlafly, renowned for her opposition to feminism and the equal rights amendment. He says Conservapedia was created last November as a project for home-schooled children - and believes it could eventually become a reference for teachers in the US. "It is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind," he said.

Wikipedia has come in for criticism for its open approach, most notably from Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Mr Hoiberg disputed a survey in scientific journal Nature which found that the website was just as accurate as its venerable counterpart. Tennessee journalist John Seigenthaler, meanwhile, also caused a stir when he attacked the site for publishing defamatory comments suggesting he had been accused of involvement in the assassinations of both John and Bobby Kennedy in the 1960s.

Despite such controversy, however, the arrival of Conservapedia has been met with derision by much of the wider internet community. A number of articles on the site have been defaced by those who are angered by its accusations - but Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, said that he was not upset by the rightwing site's claims.

"Free culture knows no bounds," he said. "We welcome the reuse of our work to build variants. That's directly in line with our mission."

Wikipedia v Conservapedia

Dinosaurs

Wikipedia: Dinosaurs were vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, first appearing approximately 230 million years ago.

Conservapedia: They are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs.

Harry Potter

Wikipedia: Since 1999, the Harry Potter books have sat atop the American Library Association's list of most protested books, with some American churches banning the books altogether.

Conservapedia: The English 'public' schools Hogwarts resembles are Protestant institutions; but at Hogwarts, chapel is conspicuously absent. A failure to mention Christianity, combined with the presence of wizardry, have led some to wonder whether Rowling is substituting paganism for Christianity."

US Democratic party

Wikipedia: Since the 1890s, the Democratic party has favoured 'liberal' positions. In recent decades, the party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention.

Conservapedia: The official platform of the Democratic party emphasizes strengthening America. Rightwing critics claim, however, that the Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism, treasonous anti-Americanism, and contempt for America's founding principles such as freedom of religion.

Vedderlution_Baby

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

darkcrow

just to add an inaccuracy to conservapedia.

they say "Jainism is a branch of Hinduism". i am a jain and can say jainism is NOT a branch of hinduism.
just to back that up "In 2006, the Supreme Court opined that "Jain Religion is indisputably not a part of the Hindu Religion". (para 25, Committee of Management Kanya Junior High School Bal Vidya Mandir, Etah, U.P. v. Sachiv, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, U.P. and Ors., Per Dalveer Bhandari J., Civil Appeal No. 9595 of 2003, decided On: 21.08.2006, Supreme Court of India) [2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

the irony of using wikipedia to show how wrong conservapedia is has not been lost on me lol

Vedderlution_Baby

darkcrow wrote:

the irony of using wikipedia to show how wrong conservapedia is has not been lost on me lol

I thought it was pretty funny too.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=235762

Theres a thread on it. That should keep you busy for about two minutes since its not really an in depth discussion about it. But ya know, its early, you just got on, I'm going to bed, and I know the board is going to be boring.

Byrnzie

darkcrow wrote:

"Facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored," he continues.

Truly fascinating.

It must be really difficult for these people to cope with reality. I expect that every day for them is a struggle to try to offset the encroachment of the real world beyond their self-imposed fantasies and delusions. They must exist in a state of perpetual opposition to the world. They're like some sort of sub-species of mutant human that is totally removed from the natural world. I wonder if like the early puritans, they regard such things as sneezing as a sign of evil? - hence the use of the words 'Bless you!" when someone sneezes. I wonder if they close their eyes when they get undressed as the sight of a naked body would send them into a mad spasm and cause them to want to flagellate themselves?
I would love for someone to carry out an in-depth study of these freaks. They seem to be a strictly American phenomenon. These ultra-Conservative fundamentalist lunatics really are intriguing. It would be fascinating to travel around the southern states and live amongst these people for a year or so and investigate what it is that makes them tick. I imagine they'd be an anthropologists dream.

Does anyone know if there's been any books, or articles written on these people? I would love to delve deeper into their strange and twisted world.

angelica

Byrnzie wrote:

darkcrow wrote:

"Facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored," he continues.

Truly fascinating.

It must be really difficult for these people to cope with reality. I expect that every day for them is a struggle to try to offset the encroachment of the real world beyond their self-imposed fantasies and delusions. They must exist in a state of perpetual opposition to the world. They're like some sort of sub-species of mutant human that is totally removed from the natural world. I wonder if like the early puritans, they regard such things as sneezing as a sign of evil? - hence the use of the words 'Bless you!" when someone sneezes. I wonder if they close their eyes when they get undressed as the sight of a naked body would send them into a mad spasm and cause them to want to flagellate themselves?
I would love for someone to carry out an in-depth study of these freaks. They seem to be a strictly American phenomenon. These ultra-Conservative fundamentalist lunatics really are intriguing. It would be fascinating to travel around the southern states and live amongst these people for a year or so and investigate what it is that makes them tick. I imagine they'd be an anthropologists dream.

Does anyone know if there's been any books, or articles written on these people? I would love to delve deeper into their strange and twisted world.

darkcrow wrote:

"I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, told the Guardian. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."

The following Einstein quote demonstrates how the facts are relevent to the perspective of the theory that frames them and are not necessarily indicative of an absolute truth or a reigning "reality".

Einstein: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"

Byrnzie

angelica wrote:

The following Einstein quote demonstrates how the facts are relevent to the perspective of the theory that frames them and are not necessarily indicative of an absolute truth or a reigning "reality".

Einstein: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"

A fact is something that conforms to the law of sufficient reason, and which can be verified by empirical observation.
For a fundamentalist Christian to say that the worl was created 12,000 years ago and that dinosaurs roamed the earth 12,000 years ago is no different from me saying that I am the Queen of Sheba.

angelica

Byrnzie wrote:

A fact is something that conforms to the law of sufficient reason, and which can be verified by empirical observation.

I'm not disputing what a fact is. What you and I are debating is the theory that ties the fact into a perspective.

For a fundamentalist Christian to say that the worl was created 12,000 years ago and that dinosaurs roamed the earth 12,000 years ago is no different from me saying that I am the Queen of Sheba.

To you, maybe. To others it is very different, hence the fact that different views are about perspective.

Scubascott

Now that -

darkcrow wrote:

Conservapedia was created last November as a project for home-schooled children - and believes it could eventually become a reference for teachers in the US.

is a scary thought. On the other hand, I don't think the rest of the word needs to feel threatened by American imperialism anymore. If things keep going the way they are in a couple of generations the whole country will be so poorly educated they'll forget how to operate the world domination machine.

Byrnzie

angelica wrote:

I'm not disputing what a fact is. What you and I are debating is the theory that ties the fact into a perspective.


To you, maybe. To others it is very different, hence the fact that different views are about perspective.

Regardless of whether someones perspective has no basis in reality, and which falls outside the bounds of reason? And i'm not talking about that which science cannot grasp. I'm talking about an absurdity.

Do you really think that there are 'others' in the world who would accept that I am the queen of Sheba? Are you saying I look like a woman?

Anon

Oh golly......conservative christians(aka "living in a fish bowl"). These people are just plain out of their fuckin' minds!

angelica

Byrnzie wrote:

Regardless of whether someones perspective has no basis in reality, and which falls outside the bounds of reason? And i'm not talking about that which science cannot grasp. I'm talking about an absurdity.

We can argue opinion, absurdities, or points of view, theoretically. That IS up for debate. What is debatable is what it is.

It's definitely as relevent to frame the natural happenings of life as stemming from intelligence as it is to say it's not stemming from intelligence. Depending on these opposing perspectives, things can be seen in a very different light. And take for example, baraka on this board. She is a scientist, and for her the stunning nature of what science shows us has indicated to her that there IS an intelligence underlying the universe. All existing theories shape how the facts are viewed and how we conceptualize new facts as they are uncovered.

Do you really think that there are 'others' in the world who would accept that I am the queen of Sheba? Are you saying I look like a woman?

I'm a little unclear as to what you are getting at here... I can say, though, that if someone is distorting facts to the point that they have lost their factual meaning, that is a different subject than I am speaking to. Those issues must be dealt with on a one by one basis. I don't accept blanket statements about 'reality' as if one person holds a market on interpretation of such, particularly when they minimize the view of others.

My personal opinion, given the numerous intelligent design threads I have seen on this board, is that as much as people like to make it about fact, it really ends up being about belief, whether for or against.

dunkman

angelica and byrnzie.... you two should write books! nobody would buy them though, but it would give you a chance to write your theories down... i repeat, no-one would buy them though

angelica

dunkman wrote:

angelica and byrnzie.... you two should write books! nobody would buy them though, but it would give you a chance to write your theories down... i repeat, no-one would buy them though

How about this: we could have them translated to picture-book format just for you!

blackredyellow

hahahaha... this is from thebrushback.com (sports version of the onion)


Conservatives Release Conservative Mock Draft

WASHINGTON, DC--Right wing conservatives have long criticized NFL mock drafts for their anti-American, anti-Christian viewpoints, and now they finally have an answer: On March 4, the National Review Online released the first ever Conservative Mock Draft, which forecasts the draft without the “clear left leaning bias” of its liberal counterparts.

NRO editor Kathryn Jean Lopez said the Conservative Mock Draft offers a “much needed alternative” to others of its ilk.

“For millions of Americans, reading a mock draft from Sports Illustrated, ESPN.com, or the dozens of other left-leaning sports publications is an exercise in frustration,” Lopez told The Washington Post today. “For instance, most mock drafts completely ignore the fact that Brady Quinn attended a Roman Catholic university. By ignoring that elephant in the room, they are revealing their anti-Christian bias. Our version puts that fact front and center, and also notes that under Saddam Hussein, one could be executed for simply thinking about football.”

Lopez also details the failed attempts on the part of conservative football fans to lodge complaints about liberal mock drafts.

“I know I personally have emailed several of these publications to point out the slanted tone of their mock drafts, and have been dismissed at every turn,” said Lopez. “I contacted one website which called Jamarcus Russell a ‘genetic freak’ who ‘represents the next step in the evolution of the quarterback position.’ Well okay, fine, some people believe in evolution, but there are millions of other Americans who don’t. Why aren’t they represented? Also, why isn’t there anything about Hillary Clinton being a cunt? Apparently this is what passes for objective journalism these days.”

Below are some sample entry from the Conservative Mock Draft:

“Pick #24: New England Patriots - The Patriots will probably select a little known offensive or defensive lineman in order to improve their depth and continue their tradition of acquiring middle-of-the-road talent for moderate money and asking them to eschew personal glory in favor of the greater good, an ideology similar to Socialism, which is what terrorists believe in.”

“Pick #11: San Francisco 49ers – The Niners need d-line help and are rumored to be interested in Louisville Senior Amobi Okoye, who originally hails from Nigeria, a country popular with Islamic Fundamentalists. He’s probably going to try and blow up the Niners stadium in his first game. Don’t say we didn’t warn you, sodomites.”

“Pick #18: Cincinnati Bengals – Nick Tyler, senior golfer from Texas Christian University, is the perfect fit for the Bengals, as he is a devout Christian who has never been in trouble with the law and is an outspoken opponent of racial quotes and the welfare system.”

Creators of alleged left-leaning mock drafts have been puzzled by the right’s criticisms and insist that any perceived bias for or against a particular ideology is purely coincidental. In fact, many claim to be uninterested in politics altogether.

“I don’t know much about politics or religion or any of that crap,” said Jonathan Dwyer, of the draft website, NFLdraftpreview.com. “So when I started getting emails from these right wing people accusing me of a media bias, I was confused. One guy told me I was disrespecting the Bible by calling Brett Favre an ‘old dinosaur’ because the Bible does not mention dinosaurs. Hey, you can believe what you want to believe, just don’t drag me into it. All I care about is who my beloved Giants are taking in the draft. See, it's called having your priorities in order.”

But conservatives aren’t asking the media to promote their agenda, Lopez says. They’re simply asking for balanced reporting and a fair representation of the diverse views of America.

“All we’re saying is they need to provide both sides to the argument,” said Lopez. “Yet you won’t find any of that in these liberal mock drafts. It’s just left-leaning football. Well, our mock draft is right leaning. It does, however, share one common trait with the lefties’ draft: It’s completely inaccurate and a colossal waste of everyone’s time.”

Scubascott

angelica wrote:

My personal opinion, given the numerous intelligent design threads I have seen on this board, is that as much as people like to make it about fact, it really ends up being about belief, whether for or against.

Not again. . . You know how hard it is for me to resist that one. I've just about given up though. It feels too futile.

dunkman

angelica wrote:

How about this: we could have them translated to picture-book format just for you!

this would be good!!!

i'm not buying it though... gift it to me?

angelica

dunkman wrote:

this would be good!!!

i'm not buying it though... gift it to me?

of course! A gift just for you!!

The trick to the picture-book endeavor would be in finding a very inventive translater. We wouldn't want to lose anything in the translation.

Byrnzie

dunkman wrote:

this would be good!!!

Not those sorts of pictures! :rolleyes:


Mind you! In the name of science?

angelica

Byrnzie wrote:

Not those sorts of pictures! :rolleyes:


Mind you! In the name of science?

Hahaha!

I'm in......................:eek:

Byrnzie

angelica wrote:

Hahaha!

I'm in......................:eek:

dunkman

angelica wrote:

Hahaha!

I'm in......................:eek:

ahhhh what the fuck... i'm in too

angelica

Scubascott wrote:

My personal opinion, given the numerous intelligent design threads I have seen on this board, is that as much as people like to make it about fact, it really ends up being about belief, whether for or against.

Not again. . . You know how hard it is for me to resist that one. I've just about given up though. It feels too futile.

It seems that you are struggling in coping with my opinion, Scubascott. It's just an opinion...we all have them! Your own opinion is not at risk. All our opinions remain well and safe.

angelica

dunkman wrote:

ahhhh what the fuck... i'm in too

hahaha!

Byrnzie

dunkman wrote:

ahhhh what the fuck... i'm in too

Just be careful where ya put your hands. I'm a bit squeamish when it comes to man love.

Jeanie

Scubascott wrote:

Now that -



is a scary thought. On the other hand, I don't think the rest of the word needs to feel threatened by American imperialism anymore. If things keep going the way they are in a couple of generations the whole country will be so poorly educated they'll forget how to operate the world domination machine.

:D:D LMAO!!!!

Byrnzie

Damn! I passed the 7000 post mark without noticing. :rolleyes:

angelica

Byrnzie wrote:

Just be careful where ya put your hands. I'm a bit squeamish when it comes to man love.

Oh man, the visuals are just too........much. *peeks through fingers*

angelica

Scubascott wrote:

angelica wrote:

My personal opinion, given the numerous intelligent design threads I have seen on this board, is that as much as people like to make it about fact, it really ends up being about belief, whether for or against.

Not again. . . You know how hard it is for me to resist that one. I've just about given up though. It feels too futile.

Allow me to clarify my statement Scubascott. Within science, there is a certain criteria of what is factual. Within the context of science that criteria remains, irrespective of the personal beliefs of those practicing the scientific method.

What I meant when I referred to these debates being essentially about belief vs non-belief, is that such debates are generally beyond the scope of the science itself. I have continually maintained that in order for science to be true to itself, it is dependent upon the scientific method. I agree that as a study, the lines of science must be clear. And yet for these debates we're often talking about people's opinions of how to deal with what we have learned from science; and people's opinions on how to teach what we've learned; or about people's interpretations of what we've learned from science. All such issues are no longer about the science itself, by nature. Ultimately these issues come down to the personal view of those arguing them and therefore we've moved from the objective realm into the subjective one.

Scubascott

Byrnzie wrote:

Damn! I passed the 7000 post mark without noticing. :rolleyes:

Wow. Does that make you wonder what you're doing with your life?

darkcrow

this is a fun game. let us see what the two sites say about... abortion

conservapedia
"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.[4] Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy"

wiki
"The abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis (also referred to by supporters as the ABC link) posits a causal relationship between induced abortion and an increased risk of developing breast cancer. In early pregnancy the level of estrogens increases, leading to breast growth in preparation for lactation. The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis proposes that if this process is interrupted with an abortion – before full differentiation in the third trimester – then more relatively vulnerable undifferentiated cells could be left than there were prior to the pregnancy, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer. The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."