Welcome to Gaia! ::

Now, wikipedia might have a liberal bias, but I think most of us will allow that a liberal bias is better than a conservative bias, because at least liberalism promotes everyone having their say. Sick of this, though, the nutjobs on the right decided we need Conservapedia, 'the trustworthy encyclopedia'. If trustworthy means 'incestous beer slurping inbred's', then they were right.

On this website, you will find such articles as this:



Now, we're not debating whether or not homosexuality is genetic or not, but my God, even if it is by choice, what is all this? Fundamentalist crap! I mean, obviously I don't have to point out the glaring errors in the above 'goals'.

The article on Homosexuality goes further, with such sub-topics as 'Homosexuality and Drug Use', '...and Murder', '...and Domestic Abuse', '...and Mental Health'. Again, need I explain that most sources on this 'encyclopedia' are biased and right-wing, and that yes, of course a gay relationship between two men studied in inner cities is going to yield results along these lines. Likewise, the knowledge that 'homosexuality is more common in cities' is unshocking, as it might be argued that homosexuality is more accepted in cities than in hick towns.

I understand, I have made biased remarks here, but sometimes it is hard not to get riled up about conservatives making 'fair' and 'trustworthy' sites like this. I mean, there are children who ahve no chance to explore themselves because of the right-wing agenda, which is all just fear of change. Sure, politically the right has good ideas now and then, but this is the kind of world we invite when we let homophobia and liberal-phobia run rampant.

You've got the problem, though, that much of the world (was going to say America, but I feel this generalisation can be extended fairly) thinks in such ways, whether they admit it or not. If the British governement moved to outlaw homosexuality, it would be a small and elite pressure group they'd stand against, not the masses. For the most part, the masses remain conservative in viewpoints but unpoliticised in action, so vote for whoever's in the news more.

Thing is, though, wikipedia covers most viewpoints. Conservapedia members tried to edit the abortion page with information claiming that an abortion increased risk of Breast Cancer, but their sourses were disproved long ago, whereas the wikipedia sources saying it didn't increase the risks were numerous and recent.

Ignorance is indeed bliss; I was unaware of Conservapedia until I saw this thread. So, I went to take a look, and um, GAH! Scaaaaary. Hopefully, with how biased it is, the only people who will take this seriously are those who are already deep set in their beliefs along those lines. For those who want a relatively painless way to compare how the two sites are different, do what I did. Go to Wikipedia and read its entry on Conservapedia, then go to Conservapedia and look up Wikipedia. While both articles show a bias against the other site, Wiki's is backed by many references, and is done in a factual manner, while Conserv's, still having some references, are highly limited, has many "facts" not referenced, and uses more of a blatant attack slant against Wiki. Seeing this reminds me why the only talk radio I listen to is the local sports channel show, which plays while I'm driving to work.

Well, of course they would suspend him. Look at their site! Do you HONESTLY expect that they're going to let anyone with some iota of knowledge on any of these subjects prove/disprove things on there that they would know about? Of course not.

I'm sure everyone know this, but I'll post it anyway.

Damned boring "Intro to Computer" class. stare

On a side note, the fact that wikis are basically blogs that can be edited by anyone, what is the point in using them as a reference?
Obviously I could never trust the ever changing Wikiwiki.

From what I can gather the Conservpedia is more of an Advocacy Web site using the Wiki trend. "If it's in a 'pedia then it's got to be true."