- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,130
- Reaction score
- 58,863
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Just a quick poll on what people think. It is anonymous.
I always thought it was a joke site.
Well I'll continue to treat it as a joke site, but now it's more haha-sad. Some of the stuff on there is so stupid, it can't be anything else other than a joke.
Nope. The people behind it are very serious as far as I can tell.
Please, an example of "liberal bias" in Wiki. I do believe that it may be there, as well as conservative leanings.What are you guys talking about. Conservapedia is the truth, I mean they found liberal bias in Wikipedia.
aren't the dickheads behind conservapedia the ones rewriting the bible to make it less liberal?
Please, an example of "liberal bias" in Wiki. I do believe that it may be there, as well as conservative leanings.
Anything written by man will have these things.
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own NPOV policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a scientist who holds a minority view. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "undue weight" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.
This is not surprising, given this Zogby poll:
While 97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". Democrats, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the media was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right – and 17% said the bias favored the left.
Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own NPOV policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a scientist who holds a minority view. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "undue weight" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.
This is not surprising, given this Zogby poll:
While 97% of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". Democrats, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the media was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a left-wing media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right – and 17% said the bias favored the left.
Nope. The people behind it are very serious as far as I can tell.
Just a quick poll on what people think. It is anonymous.
could i just say that conservopedia is not valid AT ALL?
It really does appear to be a parody site, so if it is meant to be real, it really is kinda sad. But I highly doubt anyone would really take it seriously who didn't already have most of those beliefs anyway.
A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.[1] Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly statist and, as in Europe, socialistic.
We have had posters use it as a source to prove their assertions on this very forum.
Why would it not be valid to anyone's world view?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?