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.
Options
Conservapedia
Former 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
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
0
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.