Printable View
Anyone else out there come across this? Conservative right wing America felt that wikipedia was being anti-American and anti-Christian (read their list why - it's quite funny) and felt they needed a right wing conservative twisted version.
I'm quite worried by this blatant cognitive dissonance - we don't like the way the world works so we'll have a new biased wikipedia which agrees with our preconceptions...
Link to conservapedia
An example of quality conservapedia article-ing
The Wikipedia isn't anti-Christian at all. It's perfectly informative and openly judged towards their beliefs and their history.
As for anti-American, you'd need to stop a lot more than the wikipedia for anti-Americanisation. You'd have to stop the world ;)
Well, I tend to think that the idea of collective intelligence is laughable at best and tragic at worst; anyone who regards a wiki-based cyclopedia of whatever bent as being good reference material probably needs a smack round the head with the sensible stick. I'll concede, however, the bible belt neocon version appears to be worse by some considerable degree...
Being a Christian myself, I'm actually going to agree with you on that one. They're probably those extremist right-wing Christians that hold up those signs saying "God hates fags".Quote:
Originally Posted by nichomach
Weirdos.
Sorry, why do you think that this is a bad thing? I was rather under the impression that Wikipedia was somewhat 'the Daddy' when I want a quick lookup reference for just about anything. I've only ever come across well written and well researched articles...Quote:
Originally Posted by nichomach
I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you explain why you think its such a bad thing?
This is why I am of the firm belief that all religion should be banned ;)
Ahh, but the problem is - how do you know that they are well researched and accurate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
The main problem with WP is that anyone can insert false material, and unless you know the subject, you might not know otherwise.
Don’t get me wrong, im not anti WP (I like the idea a lot), but it shouldn’t ever be used as a bible for referencing. Most of our uni lessons have a ban on using WP sourced material.
If you look up Wikipedia's own definition of Wikipedia it states that:
Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy have been questioned.[5] The site has also been criticised for its susceptibility to vandalism,[6] uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies,[7] and for favouring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[8] Wikipedia's content policies[9] and sub-projects set up by contributors seek to address these concerns.[10] Two scholarly studies have concluded that vandalism is generally short-lived[11] and that Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as other online encyclopedias.[12]
I have come across a lot of articles where clearly there is bias, but to tend to be rectified soon enough (either by omission or stating a citation is required).
Wikipedia is a good tool for research - not referencing, but leads - you can follow the research up through sound literature or even online sources. There are many a time when I've come across a Wikipedia article and went "oh, that's interesting/odd". But when following it up it either proves right/wrong or sometimes even fruitless (which is the worst disinformation because you can't follow it up). IMO, there aren't enough citations, or no concise citations for the things that should be backed up such as statements and not just figures, for the majority of Wikipedia articles I've come across personally.
What is concerning is that for many "quick-referencing" searches entered into google, by my own experience, the first entry is usually on Wikipedia when there are more authoratitive, and more detailed, sources.
As much as I like Wikipedia, sometimes I do wonder.....
Hmm, so their #1 reason is:
Wow, I can see fairly significant problems with Wikipedia(though outweighed by the good thing), but this isn't one of them. Aren't you supposed to put your best foot forward?Quote:
1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.
Quote:
Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users. Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[3]. Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.
lmao!!
Sadly:
:lol:Quote:
You searched for Ted Haggard
There is no page titled "Ted Haggard".
But apparently:
:O_o1:Quote:
Islam and Paganism
Although most Muslims profess belief in a single, almighty God, a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that the Muslim belief system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents. Some, for example, have attempted to to link Allah to a moon deity. [1] Others have pointed to the pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene cult of the pig-god Jamal. [2] There is some evidence that traditional Muslim scholars have been suppressing this information as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice (e.g., at Uhud).
Edit: Ooh! Ooh! I like this one as well:
Well, now we know...Quote:
Life [of Noah]
When Noah was 600 years old, God commanded Noah to build an Ark that would have two of every "clean"(kosher) animal and 7 of every clean animal. Noah did as he was told, God flooded the earth. After the flood (which lasted almost a year), Noah came out of the Ark, and made sacrifices to God. After this, Noah invented wine and got drunk. The resulting series of events led to the cursing of Noah's grandson Canaan.
Oh, just too funny...
http://www.conservapedia.com/Earth
Got to say that one article messed up my whole concept of who wrote this thing....
I have read their entire list of reasons why they don't like wikipedia, but some that i did read are just stupid
erm... so add the date? it isn't hardQuote:
7. The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred, but makes the doubtful claim that the Spanish Golden Age flourished in Latin America
again, how about adding it rather than creating an alternative site altogether?Quote:
18. Wikipedia's article on Feudalism is limited to feudalism in Europe and does not mention the feudal systems that developed independently in Japan and India
weirdos
edit: their entry for 'Earth' is brilliant though
Conservatives have a sense of humour?Quote:
Originally Posted by ibm
Having said that there list of reasons why they believe bias in the first place is pretty amusing too.
They got it from a book called 'The Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy'. Excellent read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Funkstar
"a book"....as though we've never heard of Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy???:PQuote:
Originally Posted by Andehh
Yes, probably my fav. book, along with Dune :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Andehh
Infact, have been listening to the radio series on the train all this week. People have often been looking at me like an idiot when laughing out loud :D
My goodness. Really? I guess I'll have to look that one up then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andehh
:vacant:
Depends very much on what subject you're looking up. I use it a fair bit for physics/chemistry type stuff and most people can't be bothered to vandalise those articles (what would be the point - hardly anyone ever reads them). Plus, wikipedia tend to have a pretty good policy on removing edits that are biased, blatently false or that are in bad taste. Oh, and they lock quite a lot of topics as well, which is a good move..Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
Yup, college has the same policy really - besides the fact that it might not be right, it's incredibly easy to catch people who use wikipedia because of the ease of cross checking information. Plus, there are better websites in most cases.
It is however useful if you want to find general information about things like games, music (artist info, discographies, etc.). I wouldn't ever use it for anything serious, but for general purpose browsing (and for the sheer amount of information) there isn't really a better all-purpose encyclopaedia online.
EDIT: GRRR... how dare they degrade the great Douglas Adams by plagiarising his words on such a website.. - and i hope that was sarcasm ibm :P
"a book" doesn't really do it justice you know. It is after all a trilogy in five parts along with a film, a TV and a Radio series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andehh
So long and thanks for all the fish...
edit: oh and there is also http://www.h2g2.com, so 'don't panic'
Maybe not the best of comparisons when going for impartiality and accuracy of facts eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent
I'd trust Wiki fact for fact over the Bible any day!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bibleQuote:
Originally Posted by chicken
4. (lowercase) any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: He regarded that particular bird book as the birdwatchers' bible.
Wasnt comparing :D
Although if i was, id fully agree :D
but is the word bible used bacuase of the religious book, or is the religious book named that to make it sound authoritive?
chicken or egg basically?
has anyone read there example list of bias in wikipedia they seem to think they because they use the proper uk spelling that some how its biased and that the american spelling is correct because theres more ppl in america :confused: :lol:
Id go with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadduckUK
But culture changes religion to a huge degree over time - hence one of the main reasons I don’t believe in religion. It’s changed to suit people at any given time.
Surely if it’s the 'word of god' then it should be static. Unless god changes his mind a lot.
Then again, this is an entirely new debate :D
Reminds me of a nice quote from HHGG: http://www.englisch.schule.de/wiesmoor/ency.htm
Read "Babel fish" at the top
blimey, i appear to underestimate the good taste this forum has when it comes to books. Never have i seen such agreement towards 'A Hitch Hiker Guide To The Galaxy'. I originally planned to elaborate a bit more on my previous post, but figured it would go right over the heads of everyone. :D
In order to stay on topic:
iv never seen any real bias on wikipedia, fair enough on heated subjects like Bush, America, Islam, Muslims etc they are heavily policed, but even then if you read it all, you wont find too many blatently biased facts. Anything that is even remotely biased is generally discussed & corrected before too much dammage is done.
Heres the funniest thing about it though
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special...arch=gay&go=Go
its arguments like these that make me glad i rely on http://uncyclopedia.org for my facts
I can't actually get on it... 'spose that's no bad thing though..
Just got onto it and this made me laugh:
Erm, that may be because the American population can't spell?Quote:
Originally Posted by Conservapedia
We English always have to put up with American spelling in windows, I'm still on 16bit colour depth for my desktop because I refuse to acknowledge the option to change to 32bit 'color' :)
I mean even the French get the right spelling in Windows as far as I know, what's a guy gotta do to get things spelled right.