Posted on 05/13/2007 7:25:59 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
“Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. Now it’s time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!”
So begins the rallying cry for Conservapedia.com, aspiring right-leaning rival to Wikipedia.org - the online encyclopedia project that now claims 7.2 million articles in 251 languages and traffic that ranks it among the world’s top 15 sites.
Wikipedia is adamant about striving to maintain a “neutral point of view.” But because it is “written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world,” the site acknowledges that “critics have questioned Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
Bad idea. Needs a different name. The name “Conservapedia” suggests right-leaning bias, whereas “Wikipedia” (the name itself) doesn’t. I could see creating a “Conservapedia” if Wikipedia had called itself “Liberalapedia” but they didn’t.
Terrible idea.
The best thing conservatives could do would be to simply actively patrol and edit Wikipedia.
They should be positioning themselves as trying to really be unbiased, instead of the posturing at Wikipedia.
They’re going to take enough credibility hits as it is, just like Fox, for trying to be unbiased.
Since encyclopedias are supposed to be neutral: the idea of creating one with bias to counteract another bias one seems to miss the point. Furthermore: I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to have a no point of view clause. Therefore: all those articles with a leftist bias should be edited to reflect of neutral point of view.
It’s not even conservative per se. They should just call it “youngearthcreationapedia.”
Been down that road here on FR, it doesn’t work. Wiki’s mods are leftist and only allow editing of helpful to the left’s political image and harmful to the Conservatives image.
For instance the last I read, Free Republic was used in oncjunction with “racist” on Wiki.
Drudge dropped the link to Free Republic by February, 1999, “because they were doing racist stuff over the [Clinton love child][4].” Drudge currently does not link.
Salon.com’s Jeff Stein observed in 1999 that: “[A] swelling number of haters have turned up the volume of death threats, gay-bashing, name-calling and conspiracy theories tying the father of Republican front-runner George W. Bush to drug-dealing by the CIA.”[14] Threats and other policy-violating posts have been removed by Robinson when brought to his attention. He says that the site has had to”
That is directly from the Wiki article on FR.
From the Free Republic link at wiki, it shoud be asked what exactly does Mr. Stein’s opinion have to do with what goes on here? Yet because FR is mentioned it cannot be edited.
There goes the theory
A story is told that when England's Tory Party changed its name to the Conservative Party, Benjamin Disraeli was asked for his reaction. He replied, "Conservative? Sounds like a dessert."
"icantbelieveitsnotwikipedia.org"
If you want a minimally comprehensive discussion of “contraception” on conservapedia, be sure to spell it “contaception.”
http://www.conservapedia.com/Contaception
And strangely, “rhythm” and “abstinence” are discussed but NFP isn’t.
Here’s a crazy idea: just present the facts without ANY political leanings. That’s all I want. I don’t need want liberal bias, but I don’t want to be pandered to, either.
Though they claim to already be a rich fountain of knowledge, I looked up several non-religious topics that I would expect to be of interest to conservatives and found almost nothing-- no entries for Sowell and Cato's Letters and only a paragraph for Hayek. By contrast, Wikipedia has extensive and very good articles on Sowell and Hayek, and at least gives a short description of Cato's letters.
Wikipedia isn't perfect. I looked up "sustainable development" and "Brundtland Commission" in both encyclopedias. Conservapedia had nothing. Wikipedia had articles on these topics; but they were all motherhood, apple pie, and platitudes no one would argue with. No mention of the draconian government controls these people are pushing.
There may be a need for a better source of information than Wikipedia; but Conservapedia isn't it--at least not yet.
Well since there isn't an unbiased accrediting agency, I don't see it as being an option just from that standpoint. And certainly any encyclopedia you can not copy and paste from is worthless in today's world of tight deadlines and footnoted online debate.
Good point, “correctopedia” would be far better. And I’ll only demand 1% royalties for its use.
Oh goodie! Another opportunity to trash wacky-pedia ;’}
1. It pretty much comes up on the first page of every Google search
2. The editors appear to be deeply embedded Leftists.
In my experience, it would take YEARS to infiltrate the Wiki editorship and bring balance to the site.
And the Leftist editors would not go quietly into the night, either.
I've seen a thread (Web 2.0 is worse for the right than it thinks) discussing frontal attempts to edit Wikipedia. Read that one.
How would that grease the Left's way into your wallet? ;-)
Need a non-biased search engine first. I am convinced Soros based groops are google bombing sites that have a leftist bent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.