Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Conservapedia

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Has anyone ever been on this before? Something tells me they should get rid of the usage statistics page.

Most viewed articles:
Homosexuality? [2,344,505]
Main Page? [2,315,866]
Teen Homosexuality? [409,973]
Arguments Against Homosexuality? [329,998]
Homosexual Agenda? [327,025]
Ex-homosexuals? [314,952]
Wikipedia? [314,789]
Homosexuality and Choice? [310,155]
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer? [297,734]
Homosexuality and Health? [291,243]

Not really politics, but :lol:

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Funny but not surprising. Conservapedia and any similar wikis that are created "as a response to the left wing/liberal bias of Wikipedia" (LOL x 94,000,000) are the recourse of loonies, fundies and ultra neocon freepers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What is it? Obviously biased from the Homosexuality article but they have a different viewpoint and attempt to justify it with sources and stuff. Can't blame them for that. Some of their points could even be considered valid (nb the 10x multiplier factor of anti-social / threatening behaviour if it is caused by homophobia rather than just general things). And on the article about wikipedia it says the editors delete anything they don't agree with even if it's referenced (oh so true).

    eta: read the holocaust article on wikipedia, it's been flagged numerous times for NPOV issues but is still very pro-jew. Nothing wrong with that and I agree with the sentiment 100%, but the whole point of wikipedia is supposed to be neutral balanced point of view, rather than a soapbox for political issues. It even says it's not a soapbox.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    What is it? Obviously biased from the Homosexuality article but they have a different viewpoint and attempt to justify it with sources and stuff. Can't blame them for that.
    The whole point of an encyclopedia is that it should be impartial, not opinionated.

    Some of the gems these people have come up with against Wikipedia is that sometimes it has been known to include English spelling in its definitions, therefore showing an anti-American and anti-conservative bias.

    They're loonies, believe me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I agree with you Aladdin :). But at the same time, they've made an attempt (in places) for it to be thorough and referenced things, so at least you get a different side of the story. I guess you would need 100 different encylcopedia's for everything, I dislike wikipedia because of the amount of times someone has edited out a referenced thing I've put there because they didn't agree with it. It's really stupid. conservapedia is more stupid lol, but I think the origins of it stem from a real gripe with wikipedia - it's not impartial, it's completely up the what the editors think. some are pretty fine, but there are loads of 'be nice' warnings because it has such a bad reputation for some of it's editors issuing ban warnings if someone adds content that the editor didn't like.

    edit: reason I'm ranting on a bit about wikipedia is that a 'editor-god' (well, a sad act who thinks he's god because he can edit pages and banhammer others) actually kept restoring an incorrect release date for a game - even the community manager for the game went on the discussion bit and referenced where he'd updated the main website to indicate this. But obviously if amazon says a date that *must* be true. Sorry, I know that's daft but seriously some of the editors are unbe-fucking-lievable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It has always been the main problem of Wikipedia. Specially the pages of politicians and certain events. It's always best to check other sources when in doubt.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    eta: read the holocaust article on wikipedia, it's been flagged numerous times for NPOV issues but is still very pro-jew.

    There are certain things like the Holocaust which I think are too big for wikipedia to cover well. Although anybody seriously wanting to learn more about the Holocaust wouldn't rely on wikipedia.

    I find the term 'pro-jew' slightly odd - and tbh it could be seen as offensive. Since I could quite quickly find many different strands of Jewish thought on the Holocaust the idea that something can be simply 'pro-jew' is ridiculous. For example, Norman Finkelstein and Daniel Goldhagen - two famous Holocaust scholars, both Jewish and both the sons of Holocaust survivors have very, very different viewpoints.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A couple of questions about neo-cons and ultra right-wingers. Why are they so utterly obsessed with homosexuality? What is it about the thought of two men having bum sex that so enrages them? And has anyone else noticed that the fat, bumbling right-wing talk show hosts in the USA never complain if they see two women scissoring?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I find the term 'pro-jew' slightly odd - and tbh it could be seen as offensive. Since I could quite quickly find many different strands of Jewish thought on the Holocaust the idea that something can be simply 'pro-jew' is ridiculous. For example, Norman Finkelstein and Daniel Goldhagen - two famous Holocaust scholars, both Jewish and both the sons of Holocaust survivors have very, very different viewpoints.

    Sorry, it was a poor choice of terminology. It's difficult to explain well in a word what the bias is though. It does paint it the holocaust from the perspective perhaps of Israel / etc. The opposite would be a holocaust denyer, of course. It's fairly subtle, but if you read through it there are a lot of small uses of emotive language that shouldn't really be in place, sentences designed to make it more dramatic. Not that in any way it wasn't one of the most terrible tragedies to befowl humanity, and I agree with the sentiment completely, but the way I see it is that an encylopedia should be almost robotic, it states what happened but without getting emotional about it. Unfortunately, since anyone can edit wikipedia, people often do get emotional about what they're writing and it comes through when reading it.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Encyclopedia Dramatica tbqh. Conservitives? Trustworthy? :lol: I only trust the internets tbh.
Sign In or Register to comment.