no one said you can't put up a website. but you are misleading people when you say you are unbiased.
wikipedia articles are written by people, it is only natural for them to have the biases of the people who wrote them. wikipedia editors and contributors then work hard to scrub the article of these biases. conservapedia, on the other hand, is a travesty - it is MUCH more biased than wikipedia ever will be. the site has even locked the atheism article from being edited.
i'm smart enough to not use c/pedia and its terribly biased articles. i don't like it and won't go there. But what about the 10 year old who is reading c/pedia's articles. will he/she be able to spot the biased, right wing conservative tone, hidden under a veil of objectivity, as well as others? Let us hope so.
1) Right, every moron has the right to put up a website, even the dumbest one, that's called the freedom of expression.
2) The bias of Wikipedia is infinitely small compared with the one of Conservapedia
3) OK, the liberals also strongly advocate their point of view, but the one of the conservatives is so dumb that it makes any argument of the liberals look intelligent.
4) The problem is that Conservapedia doesn't allow editing and criticism, so it's important to debunk their crap.
Does RantyChris think that the answer to Conservapedia's bias is to upload a grainy, 48 second video?
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1)They have a right to put up a web site if they like.
2)Wikipedia does have a slight bias.
3) Yes, evil conservatives are the only people strongly advocating their point of view, Liberals never do that, right?
4) Stop whining! If you don't like it don't go there!
TazT75 3 years ago
fool.
no one said you can't put up a website. but you are misleading people when you say you are unbiased.
wikipedia articles are written by people, it is only natural for them to have the biases of the people who wrote them. wikipedia editors and contributors then work hard to scrub the article of these biases. conservapedia, on the other hand, is a travesty - it is MUCH more biased than wikipedia ever will be. the site has even locked the atheism article from being edited.
drpandalove 3 years ago 3
one more comment (couldn't fit):
i'm smart enough to not use c/pedia and its terribly biased articles. i don't like it and won't go there. But what about the 10 year old who is reading c/pedia's articles. will he/she be able to spot the biased, right wing conservative tone, hidden under a veil of objectivity, as well as others? Let us hope so.
drpandalove 3 years ago
1) Yes, but be putting anything they like in an encyclopedia is call bias since an encyclopedia should show the general knowledge of a subject.
2) Yes, but you could double check with the link in the good page.
Worst: A research be Harvard show that wikipedia is nearly equivalent in quality to Britannica.
3) A good encyclopedia should be neutral and objective. Hard, but to be done...
4) If we don't, when they gone to stop to screw up this website?
therrydicule 3 years ago
@TazT75
1) Right, every moron has the right to put up a website, even the dumbest one, that's called the freedom of expression.
2) The bias of Wikipedia is infinitely small compared with the one of Conservapedia
3) OK, the liberals also strongly advocate their point of view, but the one of the conservatives is so dumb that it makes any argument of the liberals look intelligent.
4) The problem is that Conservapedia doesn't allow editing and criticism, so it's important to debunk their crap.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
Comment removed
hunchbacked 2 years ago
Comment removed
hunchbacked 2 years ago
awesome stuff!
kromed01 3 years ago
You go!
bjkatcher 3 years ago