[Tilmbeinymn]

indeed.

[budumol]

I don't mind an online encyclopedia with a right-wing bias. --Just don't say it's unbiased.


And I've never noticed Wikipedia to be liberal. It that because I am? Or is it because unbiased facts support liberal positions? Or is this guy just plain wrong?

[thighikergove]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
And I've never noticed Wikipedia to be liberal. It that because I am? Or is it because unbiased facts support liberal positions? Or is this guy just plain wrong? Wikipedia is incredibly biased in many ways, but it's hard to see because its POV essentially mirrors that of its readers (by the design of the site). This becomes especially apparent in an article about a subject that's often debated online - the article reads like crap, because warring editors basically argue with each other in alteranting sentences.

[royarnekara]

Originally posted by Sandman
It's biased towards geekish subjects. That too. As evidence I submit the fact that every single Pokemon has its own article (and more than a stub), and the majority of the Final Fantasy games are featured articles.

[soryalomop]

The real measurement would be Zelda. There should be volumes.

[tq4F7YKs]

Obligatory "heard about Diana's car crash yet!?" reply.

[sniskelsowwef]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_rights

The gay rights movement seeks to elevate homosexuality to the same level of social and political respectability as heterosexual relationships. It denies or dismisses the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts and the proven health risks of gay sex.

Wow!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality
Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle between members of the same sex. It is more than simply a sexual act, it is going beyond the boundaries that God has setup for marriage; one man and one woman.

Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible.

I do like how they state this fact:
Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse).

...but they don't seem to question why that is. And here's a hint: people like the author who wrote the article.

[xtc2d6u8]

Originally posted by Asher
...but they don't seem to question why that is. And here's a hint: people like the author who wrote the article. QFT

[Shemker394]

This has been mentioned on 'poly before, but it's been a while. Sadly, I believe Conservapedia has removed the image of Jesus riding a sauropod from their entry on dinosaurs.

[Z2sc8gEz]

If they're doing it to make Wikipedia appear leftist in nature, then the obvious solution is to form a group accusing Wikipedia of conservative bias and to start an overtly liberal encyclopedia.

Marxopedia

[GECEDEANY]

As stated some articles go off in all sorts of directions depending on who is contributing. Just depends on what articles you read.

[RastusuadegeFrimoum]

Wikipedia is biased towards the viewpoints of the typical frequent internet user. So there's a definite geek bias, youth bias, male bias, richer-than-average bias, etc.

Also, each individual article is biased towards the POV of the sort of person who would read the article. That's why the 9-11 and Roswell conspiracy theory articles are so unencyclopedic and stuff. Because generally it's conspiracy nutjobs who would read and edit those articles.

[12Jasoumemoobia]

The meaning of the word conservative is quite literally 'biased', "un-biased conservative" is an oxymoron

[sirmzereigMix]

Jon Stewart has one cushie job.

They show a clip of a politician saying something and then he looks at the camera with a WTF-expression on his face. Stupid politicians are a humorists gold mine.