Conservapedia talk:Examples of bias in Conservapedia

Um...wtf? Nothing here...should we delete? Researcher 21:32, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Should get a WIP tag or something. Although I'm amused by "Homosexuality article puts homosexuals in a very negative light". Pretty much UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR! ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 15:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I see this article is growing rapidly, if somewhat unevenly. I don't take a great interest in CP but I'm not sure exactly what criteria are being used to identify these particular examples of bias. I mean, some of them are examples of a lack of professionalism or things that we might disagree with - but I think we need to be a little clearer on why these particular items represent "bias". Indeed, I fear that we could end up copying the whole site.--Bob^{bing up} 15:53, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Uhhh, this seems like a verrrry weak article. "Article X is biased because it's full of bias against X" isn't much of an argument. This needs to get a LOT stronger to avoid deletion, I'd say. DogP 03:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

(EC)They're not particularly biases as much as general inaccuracies or inconsistencies. It's worth either re-wording or trying to get better criteria for what a bias is and cut it down from there, rather than just outright saying what's wrong with CP. ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 03:28, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Furthermore in one sense our articles are biased - towards the scientific method. CP is biased towards Conservative opinions, do they deny this? WP tries not to be biased so any bias there would be noteworthy. If CP itself maintains that CP has a bias then an article pointing out that this is so would not seem to be very useful.--Bob^{bing up} 05:12, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I see that they don't admit to it in so many words. They claim Wikipedia is biased but that implies that bias is wrong. So they can't say that CP is biased, only that it's truthful. Indeed, they do get the conservative view across, but they don't really say conservative "view" they say "reality". I've gone ahead and altered the wording on most of the entries to try and reflect this idea. We're looking at how it slants things too far. ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 07:42, 17 November 2008 (EST)

I've jsut been looking at their published position when I came across this which includes such gems as:

• We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then we use the label "terrorist" but Wikipedia will use the "neutral" term "militant".
• We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.
• We do not require contributing editors to have to explain themselves constantly and justify every single edit to prove that it conforms to an exacting set of rules which are designed to suppress original thought, new ideas and penetrating insights.

I've seem them all before but it's been a while since I've looked at such things.--Bob^{bing up} 13:10, 17 November 2008 (EST)