Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,221 Year: 5,478/9,624 Month: 503/323 Week: 143/204 Day: 13/4 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 167 (388141)
03-04-2007 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tusko
03-03-2007 11:13 AM


Wiki bias
Clearly it is very amateurish, and says some very funny, strange things. It must be noted that it has to some degree been compromised by piss-takers and pastiche-artists, hence the current lock-down on new accounts.
Personally, I think its as mad as a screaming weasel on a pogo-stick, and I think it might be potentially quite damaging - an example of a kind of social isolationism. I was just wondering what anyone else thought of it.
Amteurish or not, the fact that Wikipedia is a user net means that anybody can simply invent their own facts based on only superficial evidence. They do have editors who look for "vandalism," but given that Wikipedia is run by about 30 people coupled with the fact that there is probably over a million articles at this point, means that special interest groups can spin their own version facts and history.
Is it a big problem? No, not for the most part. I think Wiki is still basically a reliable source, but there is alleged bias both liberal and conservative. And I can say that I've come across some very suspicious articles. Usually, however, they are flagged for "neutrality," which means one of those 30 people is doing their job.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tusko, posted 03-03-2007 11:13 AM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by NosyNed, posted 03-04-2007 8:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 71 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2007 8:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 132 by Tusko, posted 03-07-2007 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 167 (388260)
03-05-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Quetzal
03-05-2007 8:45 AM


Re: Wiki bias
I agree, NJ. This is one of the main reasons I avoid wiki as a reference where ever possible. Unless it deals with some subject on which I already have some knowledge, I'm hesitant to accept what is written in an environment where basically anyone can "spin" to their hearts' content. And no, I don't have any examples of un-factual or erroneous information on wiki - it's a gut reaction. I find the peer-reviewed journals better all around.
I think you would agree that for the most part, statistically speaking, that Wiki is likely more accurate than inaccurate. However, if someone is engaged in a heated debate, the statistical probability is going to mean little if you pulled up an article full of inaccuracies. Its not fair to either party. Both parties should just seek and desire the truth, whatever the truth may be, even at the risk of spoiling one's own argument. Sometimes the truth may hurt, but that's all we've got while we're on this rotating mudball called, Earth.
When I wrote this post, it came to light that I misunderstood the premise of the OP's inquiry. When it said "Conservapedia," I thought Tusko was essentially using it as a pejorative by asking if Wikipedia is subject to conservative bias. As you share, yes, there is twisting of facts coming from all sides. I only later found out that, no, they are not using it as a pejorative, but that there really is a "Conservapedia." According to their mission statement, the writers allege that Wikipedia is fraught with liberal inaccuracies, and as a way to ameliorate that, they would host their own version of the online encyclopedia.
I am trouble by many of their definitions. I say that I am troubled by them because they use loose definitions, inaccurate definitions, or completely nonsensical definitions. In doing so, they unwittingly create their own biased encyclopedia, something they alleged they wanted to get away from in the first place. And since I might generally consider myself a conservative, it upsets me that they end up giving me a black eye by default.
I have sought to write the editors and authors of this site to plead with them to either take it down, or to correct their grossly disfigured "facts." I cannot find any avenue in which to correspond with them.
If any of you out their in EvC land can come up with a way to correspond with them, I think we'd all be grateful. I also suggest that you allow me to speak with them since I am a conservative. If some of the liberal minds try to write to them, it will only inflame them and make their resolve all the more resolute. But if you let me talk to them, they might respond better to me since I am one of their own.
Does that make sense? Any one in favor of that?
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Quetzal, posted 03-05-2007 8:45 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 1:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 86 by nator, posted 03-05-2007 1:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 167 (388326)
03-05-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
03-05-2007 1:11 PM


Re: Wiki bias
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, and
2) 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 1:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 5:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 167 (388402)
03-05-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by crashfrog
03-05-2007 5:30 PM


Re: Wiki bias
If you're able to engage some of its editors in discussion I'd like to see the results of that (if you want.)
Yeah sure. So far, no answer. I wonder how often they come around. Or they may think I'm trolling. Who knows...
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.
The second you use it as a reference the debate is over because its too suspect as being a biased source. Its kind of like creationists using AiG or evo's using TO.
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.
I have no idea who was at CPAC this year, save Malkin and Horowitz.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 5:30 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 03-05-2007 10:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024