|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: www.conservapedia.com - What do you think? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Shoemaker-Levy. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
The real question is... do you think we can get Ray to write them an article on the Great Pyramids?
"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
for all their lunacy, I don't think they're that crazy.
but then, ray would probably declare them to not be true christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Funny thing is, I don't think they'll be able to keep the crazies off their site. Maybe not Ray specifically, but there are many more like him out there.
They've set themselves up as the place you can go to scream about Jesus because Wikipedia won't let you. It won't be especially stunning if the crazies start crawling out of the woodwork to go scream about Jesus. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
It's the truth man ! you cannot handle the truth!
quote: http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_news They also have their own version of youtube Watch Christian Videos - Today's Popular Video Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Apparently you don't know much about conservativism. The fact that you're writing them a letter of disagreement will be sufficient reason for them to conclude that you're not one of their own, no matter what you say. Does this mean you are adverse to me trying?
That's what happened to conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, after all. He's been all but excommunicated by conservatives for disagreeing with certain aspects of the Bush administration. I wasn't aware of this excommunication. As far as I know, he is still one of the foremost conservative voices in America, and bar none, THE conservative voice amongst homosexuals.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't be so terse. Your post actually contains a fair bit of hope - the hope that you'll see how the qualities you've identified in Conservapedia, the qualities that trouble you - the echo-chamber atmosphere, the primacy of dogma over fact My issue is that some of their facts are anything but. I also don't like how its geared toward a specific demographic. Facts are facts. There shouldn't be any kind of political or ideological spin nestled precariously within it.
Was anybody here surprised that "Conservapedia", in practice, would be a place where "facts" were determined as true not by how they matched the evidence but by how they matched conservativism? No, of course we weren't, because that's standard operating procedure for conservatives. What you see in Conservapedia, NJ, is what we see in nearly every media that's supposedly "balanced" towards conservatives. That's fine. But Conservapedia does have a point, even though they hypocrtically did the same thing-- that liberal bias is overwhelmingly the majority view, especially in Western nations, like America, Canada, and England. Their approach would have been had it actually been balanced, and had their facts been glossed over by fact-checkers and editors.
Oh - I was going to suggest: If you want to communicate with the editors of Conservapedia, take advantage of the fact that 1) every article has a discussion ("talk") page to discuss its content, and2) Wikis are universally self-referential. In other words - Conservapedia doubtless has an entry for Conservapedia (just as Wikipedia has an article on Wikipedia). So that's probably a good place for you to voice your concerns about the project. Yes, I had considered doing just that. I was hoping for something a little more private, but if that is my only avenue of communication, I have no other option. "He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Does this mean you are adverse to me trying? Not in the slightest. Knock yourself out. If you're able to engage some of its editors in discussion I'd like to see the results of that (if you want.) I'm just making a prediction about the sort of person who goes over to create a "conservative wikipedia" simply to lock his ideological counterparts out of the debate.
As far as I know, he is still one of the foremost conservative voices in America, and bar none, THE conservative voice amongst homosexuals. He's written about it pretty extensively. You'll notice that he wasn't one of the CPAC speakers this year; hasn't been on the panel for a while, I think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In terms of imposing Christain morality and advocating Christian based victorian style values the conservatives win hands down.
Your average well meaning 'teachings of Christ' type Christian may well be predominantly left wing but in terms of ramming overtly moralising political philosophy down the throat of the electorate the conservatives historically have little competition.
Tony Blair is probably the most vocally Christian Prime Minister we've had. Tony Blair is probably the most right wing leader of the labour party we have ever had as well. And even he generally draws the line at overtly defining social policy on the basis of moral ideology. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
In terms of imposing Christain morality and advocating Christian based victorian style values the conservatives win hands down. Yes, that's true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Interesting. I vaguely remember a former colleague (a teacher) who absolutely disallowed wikipedia as a reference in term papers she assigned. Maybe it was more an issue of primary vs. secondary sources. I don't suppose Chronicle is freely available on-line?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2512 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I had a teacher who didn't like it either--but then, it may have been something to do with the fact that the wiki article on Allende argued that he didn't kill himself (as I recall).
He didn't have a problem with my friend's resource, which argued for the traditional view of Allende's death, though it was equal quality and perhaps less well sourced. He's also conservative (in a more trad. sense--gov't should stay out of your life, not dictate morality), which may have had something to do with it (since Allende was a communist) "Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant " One useless man is a disgrace. Two are called a law firm. Three or more are called a congress" --paraphrased, John Adams Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Wikipedia itself (via the community) says it's not a reliable source for those purposes. (which is odd considering all the pages it has telling you how to cite it...).
Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Quetzal writes: Interesting. I vaguely remember a former colleague (a teacher) who absolutely disallowed wikipedia as a reference in term papers she assigned. Maybe it was more an issue of primary vs. secondary sources. I don't suppose Chronicle is freely available on-line? My She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, Dragon Lady Perfesser of Literature and Composition, will not accept encyclopedias as cited references in undergraduate research papers, though a bibliography entry for general background is no problem. That seems reasonable to me. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
At the moment, yes, it's moving further from the earth. That will not last forever. The moon is currently being accelerated in it's orbit by the tidal bulges of the earth - these rotate with the spin of the earth ahead of the moon, thus the gravity from these bulges attract the moon ahead of it's position. This also means that the moon's gravity acting on these bulges is slowing the spin of the earth about it's axis (thus maintaining rotational inertia). The evidence for this is recorded in daily growth rings within annual growth rings of certain ancient corals (dated by radiometric dating). In the Devonian Period the year was about 400 days of ~365*24/400 = 21.9 current hrs and in the Pennsylvanian Period the year was about 390 days ~365*24/390 = 22.5 current hrs. http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap15/coral.html
quote: This could eventually reach an equilibrium point where the orbital period of the moon matches the rotational period of the earth. It could also keep going - I'd need an astrophysics maven to calculate the relative possibilities. Personally I do not think that it would reach a point and then start collapsing back into the earth, but I could be wrong. It could well be at the point where the sun has expanded close enough to the earths orbit that solar effects start to take over. Enjoy. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix one quote box. RAZD's quality control seems to be really on the skids. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, once the earth's rotation slowed enough so that it, too, showed the same face toward the moon, then there would be no more tidal friction, and the system should be stable. But I, too, once read that eventually the situation would reverse, and the moon would begin to approach the earth. I can't remember why (and I was a kid, so the explanation may have been lacking); it may have something to do with the sun exerting an extra perturbation on the system. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024