ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Strange. You would think that, if they think Wikipedia is biased, they'd try and form a "less" biased version of it, rather than one that promotes its bias in the very URL
Monday, February 26, 2007
A conservative rival for Wikipedia?
Earlier this week I stumbled across something called Conservapedia, which, at first glance resembles Wikipedia. It is laid out exactly the same way and uses similar fonts and colours. Furthermore, just like Wikipedia, anyone can add and edit entries after registering with the site.
But that's about as far as the similarity goes. On its home page, Conservapedia claims to be "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American". Conservapedia contains entries that reflect creationist thinking on evolution and lend support to critics of global warming.
Shortly after I found the site it was also discovered by a group of anti-Intelligent Design bloggers. They took it upon themselves to poke fun at the entries and correct much of the science. "Most of the science on the site is either shallow and useless or downright wrong," says Paul Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota in Morris who runs the popular blog Pharyngula.
This flurry of activity lead the site’s administrators to change the edits back and also to ban over 60 IP addresses and users from the site (compared to just 6 before it was discovered). The reasons given by the administrators included "obscenity", "vandalism", "violation of the rules", and ''inappropriate disparagement of God''.
Conservapedia was created by one Andy Schlafly, attorney and son of the prominent conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly. I contacted him to ask about removing the posts. "I was very upset," he said. "The level of vandalism and obscenity was shocking."
Schafly describes the site as "a new way of learning about history and science". He originally created it together with the 58 students that he teaches at a home school and he suggests it could ultimately be used by teachers to as a reference point, because of effort to keep it clear of "obscenity". But another reason for creating it was what Schlafly calls the "dissatisfaction and bias" in Wikipedia. "The administrators are overwhelmingly liberal on Wikipedia," he says.
Joshua Rosenau, a graduate student in evolutionary biology at the University of Kansas and contributor to Science Blogs claims the site has a darker side. "On some level it's also reflective of a harmful attitude that some people – especially those on the far right – tend to have about science and truth," he told me. "They are re-defining their own truth and seem to think facts are malleable."
Jimmy Wales, creator of Wikipedia, is more philosophical about the affair. "Free culture knows no bounds," he told me in an email. "We welcome the reuse of our work to build variants. That's directly in line with our mission."
Celeste Biever - technology reporter, New Scientist.
Unfortunately, the site is down (probably was raided) But I was able to get this piece.. Argh...
Quote:
Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users. Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[3]. Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg".
A friend of mine wrote a text for European Union (he was joking). Don't know if he was able to put in Conservapedia.
Quote:
European Union
Commonly known as the EU, the European Union was founded in 1957 to counter Christian and American interests. A secret papal decree from 1956(1) ensured that Papism became the prevalent religion in the European Union, although today we see that Islam is replacing it because Christianity is persecuted.
The population in the EU is 75% Arab, 3% French and 10% German.
The European Union is well-known for its support of dictatorships like Iraq and as an enemy of freedom and Christian values. The state socialism adopted by all member countries is designed to brainwash and “reform” all Christians into mindless socialist zombies, bereft of faith. Recent expansions in Eastern Europe give some hope of a Christian resurgence as Romanians, Bulgarians and various other God-fearing people are becoming part of the European Union.
Soft on terror, the European Union has steadily refused to support the war on terror and even orchestrated a bombing of trains in Madrid to make the freedom-loving people of Spain toe the line. Soldiers from EU countries fought badly in Afghanistan, and most of them joined the Taleban shortly after the invasion.
The EU’s main exports are anti-Americanism and moral high ground.
Last edited by Handel; 02-28-2007 at 10:44 PM..
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Wikipedia is part of the complete dumbing-down of America and the world. I struggle all the time to get my daughter to look things up in books and cross-check references using other sources. She told me last week that her teacher accepted references from Wikipedia for research work. When I talked to the teacher a couple of days later about it, she said that she doubted my claim that Wikipedia was not accurate on many entries.
There was a comparative study about a year ago, comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Brittanica. Evidently, their accuracy was rated about the same.
But going to the encyclopedia should not count as research at, say, the high school level and above. Kids should know how to at least use the library (whether or not they use it online, which nowadays, they should.) Usually someone has written something similar to or touching on your subject matter, and it's the only way to be aware of the "general stream" of knowledge to that point.
By the way, on the main premise -- Wikipedia provides self-correcting mechanisms, which conservatives make use of all the time to challenge the accuracy of "biased" articles. It looks like that process is just too frustrating in Conservative land. I'll be interested in seeing whether the "alternative" service provides similar mechanisms.
Wikipedia is part of the complete dumbing-down of America and the world. I struggle all the time to get my daughter to look things up in books and cross-check references using other sources. She told me last week that her teacher accepted references from Wikipedia for research work. When I talked to the teacher a couple of days later about it, she said that she doubted my claim that Wikipedia was not accurate on many entries.
I doubt your claim, too. Do you have any examples? Most the the Wikipedia articles are very well sourced, though like in any book there are some errors. Wikipedia has a pretty good model to guard against errors and dishonest entries. That said, as you and PatsFaninVA seems to point out, students should use some primary source material when writing a paper.
Wikipedia is not reliable, and that's coming from someone who uses it a lot. While it's very useful to get a quick overview of something, and the references it provides are great for digging deeper into the topic, I've ran into (and edited out) plenty of outright misinformation in articles. I wouldn't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia, it's more of a collaborative website on everything under the sun.
The conservapedia idea is just stupid. It's like giving up on the search for scientific truth if it conflicts with your political beliefs.
Wikipedia is part of the complete dumbing-down of America and the world.
I agree 100%. As further evidence of this, I submit the fact that Patters uses it as his #1 source for reference. (His #2 source is a nationally known holocaust denier, but I digress).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan
I struggle all the time to get my daughter to look things up in books and cross-check references using other sources. She told me last week that her teacher accepted references from Wikipedia for research work. When I talked to the teacher a couple of days later about it, she said that she doubted my claim that Wikipedia was not accurate on many entries.
I read an article recently about a university that informed its students that Wikipedia is not a legitimate reference. I wish more would follow suit.
Wikipedia is not reliable, and that's coming from someone who uses it a lot. While it's very useful to get a quick overview of something, and the references it provides are great for digging deeper into the topic, I've ran into (and edited out) plenty of outright misinformation in articles. I wouldn't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia, it's more of a collaborative website on everything under the sun.
It's a great place to go if you want to find out Franklin Pierce's birthday or the atomic weight of helium. But if you want to research a topic that is even remotely controversial, it is no better a reference tool than this forum.
Can someone post an example of where Wikipedia is unreliable? Sometimes it's incomplete, but overall I think it's quite reliable. I've often cross-checked what I've read in Wikipedia and have never been disappointed. What is the evidence that's it's unreliable? The links I provided above seem to support the contention that it's quite reliable.
Can someone post an example of where Wikipedia is unreliable? Sometimes it's incomplete, but overall I think it's quite reliable. I've often cross-checked what I've read in Wikipedia and have never been disappointed. What is the evidence that's it's unreliable? The links I provided above seem to support the contention that it's quite reliable.
Well, there was that guy (which I have already posted to this board but apparently you missed that) who was accused of being involved in the Kennedy Assassination... but that's not really a big deal, is it...?
The fact that someone as biased as you finds it reliable pretty much rests my case. Of course, you also find the Institute for Holocaust Review reliable...
A conservative rival for Wikipedia?
Linear Mode
