wikipedia is too liberal... apparently

soulsinging

Scubascott wrote:

I'm pretty sure the orginal Hebrew and Latin texts used american spelling.

god had to play the hand he was dealt i guess. luckily for him and jesus america came along to save him and his word. wait, seems kinda backwards doesnt it?

Byrnzie

Scubascott wrote:

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

No, it makes me wonder what I'm doing with your lives.

Scubascott

soulsinging wrote:

god had to play the hand he was dealt i guess. luckily for him and jesus america came along to save him and his word. wait, seems kinda backwards doesnt it?

He was lucky. Look where he'd be otherwise!

http://www.zeenews.com/images/haj-pil-gd3.jpg

http://www.davidbowie.com/users/scottspalding/Pope_funny.jpg.jpg

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

which is what is at issue here. conservapedia is an instrument designed solely to do precisely this. that was his point, and his point is correct.

Any my point is that there are unending institutions out there that present the facts through their own viewpoint. For example, newspapers report "facts" in such a vague generalized way that they completely minimize full findings of science, when science is the focus. Tv news, too, or magazines. It is rare that people seek out the full truth on a given subject. We each choose which representation works for us. For example, my boyfriend refuses to use wikipedia because of the everyperson aspect of it--he doesn't trust "people who sit around on the internet all day editing wikipedia articles". (especially considering my brother, and my daughter's boyfriend have wikipedia article parts out there). Like it or not, no one perspective has the market on truth. Different people and groups are in different stages looking through different worldviews.

I initially did not see Byrnzie specifically point to a direct conservapedia quote that was non-factual. Maybe I missed something. The way I saw it, he was talking about how "they must exist in a sort of subspecies of mutant human that is totally removed from the natural world". I take issue with this view, considering that there are varying phases of human development and that all of us are at different stages at different times. We're all looking at the natural world through different types of lenses at different times. I see the validity of different world views.

I've seen how a liberal slant minimizes a conservative one. If I were conservative and frustrated by the going institution doing so, I'd find it perfectly acceptable to start a counter-movement-institution. Even though I distinctly lean to the left, I see the bias and condescension towards conservatives and until that bias is dealt with, this type of thing (and stuff like ID movements) will continue to be the natural fallout. In the big picture of our evolution, what does not serve a valid need will fall away. The problem with judging other views comes in when we expect everyone to be on some mysterious, arbitrary and universal plane of "rightness" which is what is truly unrealistic.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

Any my point is that there are unending institutions out there that present the facts through their own viewpoint. For example, newspapers report "facts" in such a vague generalized way that they completely minimize full findings of science, when science is the focus. Tv news, too, or magazines. It is rare that people seek out the full truth on a given subject. We each choose which representation works for us. For example, my boyfriend refuses to use wikipedia because of the everyperson aspect of it--he doesn't trust "people who sit around on the internet all day editing wikipedia articles". (especially considering my brother, and my daughter's boyfriend have wikipedia article parts out there). Like it or not, no one perspective has the market on truth. Different people and groups are in different stages looking through different worldviews.

"they must exist in a sort of subspecies of mutant human that is totally removed from the natural world".

i dont use wikipedia either, becos i also distrust it. but it's is at least a more populist and equitable source with no overt agenda. conservapedia is not an unbiased information source, it clearly has a specific and selective agenda. thus, it is dangerous for people to treat it as an unbiased source of information, which people will do.

angelica wrote:

"they must exist in a sort of subspecies of mutant human that is totally removed from the natural world".

id agree with him on that too, but it's got nothing to do with my criticism of wikipedia

chopitdown

I can see how they want the dates different..no big deal...but c'mon english v american spellings? I can see they'd want to highlight Christianity's role in society and if wiki is really editing things out I can see how people would want to have a sort of policing or watchdog group...but this is def not it.

callen

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

beverages with a dear freind at restaurant couple weeks ago...he was looking at the people walking by...and was smiling.....asked him why...and said...."I'm just truely amazed at how they do it....they keep juggling all these balls, all these lies...how do they pull it off." I told him it was really not that hard..just self preservation. Course we're all juggling...just when you believe in God and religion...damn it must be tough. I really believe that the lies can't continue much longer...maybe not in my lifetime....but organized religions won't survive...well unless the rapture happens....oh yea!

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

i dont use wikipedia either, becos i also distrust it. but it's is at least a more populist and equitable source with no overt agenda. conservapedia is not an unbiased information source, it clearly has a specific and selective agenda. thus, it is dangerous for people to treat it as an unbiased source of information, which people will do.

I will personally definitely use wikipedia because it's generally okay in my mind. There is a problem with any mainstream source in that it will and does minimize alternative views, giving weight dependent upon what percentage buys into which views. That may be a reasonably fair way of doing it, however it's not necessarily accurate in terms of reflecting the actual truth at times. If we're looking to be general, fine. If we are looking to be accurate, that's a different thing. And any lack of accuracy necessitates fallout. For example, I've checked into some of the mental health stuff on wikipedia, and while it's accurate in terms of what is commonly believed by the main of experts within a field, that is not necessarily based on the Truth.

I loved what baraka, as a scientist,--an insider--pointed out earlier (I think in a different thread). Science makes some extrapolations that may or may not be accurate. When we take those leaps as absolute truth as the mainstream people, it's at the cost of understanding and truth. I personally love for any powerful institution such as wikipedia to have an alternative source nipping at their heels.

id agree with him on that too, but it's got nothing to do with my criticism of wikipedia

Hey, more power to people's opinions.

Ahnimus

It's stupid, wikipedia is open to everyone to edit and debate. It's not like Conservatives aren't allowed to post edits or discuss the content of Wikipedia articles. It's just the majority of people don't think like hardcore conservatives.

Creating Conservapedia doesn't bring anymore balance to Wikipedia. All it does it create a polarization between the two. Now you have a strongly conservative Conservapedia and a conservative-less wikipedia. Which is fine by me, but it doesn't really help Conservatives at all.

Also some 70% of Conservapedia's hits have been "Vandals" non-conservatives adding liberal spin to Conservapedia articles.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

I will personally definitely use wikipedia because it's generally okay in my mind. There is a problem with any mainstream source in that it will and does minimize alternative views, giving weight dependent upon what percentage buys into which views. That may be a reasonably fair way of doing it, however it's not necessarily accurate in terms of reflecting the actual truth at times. If we're looking to be general, fine. If we are looking to be accurate, that's a different thing. And any lack of accuracy necessitates fallout. For example, I've checked into some of the mental health stuff on wikipedia, and while it's accurate in terms of what is commonly believed by the main of experts within a field, that is not necessarily based on the Truth.

I loved what baraka, as a scientist,--an insider--pointed out earlier (I think in a different thread). Science makes some extrapolations that may or may not be accurate. When we take those leaps as absolute truth as the mainstream people, it's at the cost of understanding and truth. I personally love for any powerful institution such as wikipedia to have an alternative source nipping at their heels.

Hey, more power to people's opinions.

the purpose of wikipedia is to provide references to the best facts we've got, just like britannica or worldbook does. your speech here is nonsense, saying nothing can ever be known and there is no such thing as Truth becos truth is all relative. by that logic, every paper ever turned in for school is an A paper becos "who knows? they might be right as long as its the Truth from their eyes!" im glad wikipedia presents the commonly accepted expert view of psychology, that is what it is for... a compilation of the general consensus on things. it is not supposed to give equal weight to crackpot notions from anyone who feels like submitting a correction (have you heard of the flying spaghetti monster?) just becos they might have the real Truth and we just dont know it yet!

it is so that if a kid is doing a science project, he can check out wiki and find some references that are scientifically accepted and will guide him to an A paper. not so that he can check out wiki and turn in a paper about how he doesn't need to know geology becos earth processes are irrelevant becos they are mere inventions created by the flying spaghetti monster to fool us. it is so that if you catch a flu and look up flu you find out it's a virus and the general recovery program is soup and apple juice, not find out it's a misalignment of your psyche and what you should do is spin around 3 times, clap your hands, and then do the hokey pokey to get your positive energy to get that flu!

these people are spreading disinformation by creating an "encyclopedia" that presents as fact a very distorted and slanted agenda. it's a disservice to its users and the people behind it should have our approbation and ridicule, not our enabling.

angelica

soulsinging wrote:

the purpose of wikipedia is to provide references to the best facts we've got, just like britannica or worldbook does. your speech here is nonsense, saying nothing can ever be known and there is no such thing as Truth becos truth is all relative. by that logic, every paper ever turned in for school is an A paper becos "who knows? they might be right as long as its the Truth from their eyes!" im glad wikipedia presents the commonly accepted expert view of psychology, that is what it is for... a compilation of the general consensus on things. it is not supposed to give equal weight to crackpot notions from anyone who feels like submitting a correction (have you heard of the flying spaghetti monster?) just becos they might have the real Truth and we just dont know it yet!

it is so that if a kid is doing a science project, he can check out wiki and find some references that are scientifically accepted and will guide him to an A paper. not so that he can check out wiki and turn in a paper about how he doesn't need to know geology becos earth processes are irrelevant becos they are mere inventions created by the flying spaghetti monster to fool us. it is so that if you catch a flu and look up flu you find out it's a virus and the general recovery program is soup and apple juice, not find out it's a misalignment of your psyche and what you should do is spin around 3 times, clap your hands, and then do the hokey pokey to get your positive energy to get that flu!

these people are spreading disinformation by creating an "encyclopedia" that presents as fact a very distorted and slanted agenda. it's a disservice to its users and the people behind it should have our approbation and ridicule, not our enabling.

Go back and check: where did I say all truth is relative and nothing can ever be known? I clearly pointed to a lack of accuracy when it does in fact exist. I also pointed to the fact that because there is a general consensus on something, that means we have a general consensus. The 'general consensus' itself is about social convention and social relevency. We at one time had a general consensus that the world was flat. A consensus does not equal truthful accurate knowledge. Due to this line of potential inaccuracy that is generally accepted, we inadvertently create the loophole that brings into being the oppositional counter movements that force higher standards and deeper scrutiny into place. We create the conservapedia-type countermovements that we claim to dislike. We perpetuate an evolutionary need for them, unwitting of our active participation.