+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Conservapedia or Wikipedia

  1. #1
    Leave me alone, fanboys! rematche is making a name for themselves rematche is making a name for themselves rematche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,801
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 49 Times in 46 Posts

    Conservapedia or Wikipedia

    yup...which one do you fits to your likings and why? i never realize that there's a Conservapedia, until last week. though there are wikipedia spin-offs and mostly are satires but Conservapedia is dead serious and some how has an agenda. so my pick wikipedia, for being semi-balance, semi-versatile, but at least honest. while Conservapedia kinda raised my eye brow.
    YYYEEEEAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

  2. #2
    丹色 月影 BrightShadow_96 may be famous one day BrightShadow_96 may be famous one day BrightShadow_96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The piano. ♫ | ♩
    Posts
    684
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 8 Times in 8 Posts

    Re: Conservapedia or Wikipedia

    Well, I tend to go for information with the least amount of bias possible.
    I looked up a few presidents in each and I think it's extremely obvious that Conservapedia is heavily biased (thus the name). For example, the Barack Obama article starts:
    Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro,[1][2][3] allegedly born in Honolulu August 4, 1961[4][5][6][7][8]) is the 44th President of the United States, and the first President who is biracial. He previously was associated with several radical causes[9] and served less than four years as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2005-2008).
    Compared to Wikipedia:
    Barack Hussein Obama II (Listeni /bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned after his election to the presidency in November 2008.
    I can honestly say that, even though I'm pretty liberal, I'd much rather have raw information rather than statements taken out of context, biased studies, etc. Liberapedia, for example, is a horrible resource. Even though I agree with a lot of liberal viewpoints, it's pretty safe to say that it's even more biased than Conservapedia.
    Barack Obama is the current President of the United States. He was the junior United States Senator from Illinois from 2005 until 2008. He is working to end the war in Iraq, and despite Republican attempts to ruin it he passed Universal Health Care Reform which has started to go into effect.

    He is a man who knows what it's like to overcome racism and rise up to become the president of the United States. He is a man who has united the entire Democratic party, and who aims to unite the nation. Some liberals have expressed concerns that his legislative accomplishments thus far are lacking. Well, maybe send him a better Congress to work with, geniuses.

    He has been frequently opposed by born-again pro-family politicians who are horrified that his welfare policies may actually improve living conditions for low-income families.
    I'm sticking with Wikipedia.

  3. #3
    Grouchy Old Anime Otaku LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata has become well known LenMiyata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Silicon Valley, California
    Posts
    5,477
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 172 Times in 147 Posts

    Re: Conservapedia or Wikipedia

    Grumble Grumble Grumble

    Personally, I would use Wikipedia for casual and introductory information, but for serious stuff I would exercise my Google search skills and look for the original material. I've found enough errors in Wikipedia to know that it (or other online library sources), shouldn't be your only source of information...
    FAVOURITE THREADS EXPLAIN why, or risk an infraction.
    Rantings of a Grouchy Old Anime Otaku

  4. #4
    Leave me alone, fanboys! rematche is making a name for themselves rematche is making a name for themselves rematche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,801
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 49 Times in 46 Posts

    Re: Conservapedia or Wikipedia

    Quote Originally Posted by BrightShadow_96 View Post
    I can honestly say that, even though I'm pretty liberal, I'd much rather have raw information rather than statements taken out of context, biased studies, etc. Liberapedia, for example, is a horrible resource. Even though I agree with a lot of liberal viewpoints, it's pretty safe to say that it's even more biased than Conservapedia.


    I'm sticking with Wikipedia.
    hhhmmm...i did further scanning of Liberapedia, and it's just simply one of these spin-offs of wikipedia. it's produced by wikia and falls in the category of creative. these spin-offs are not in the same league of wikipedia and conservapedia, hence they're not to be taken seriously. but conservapedia is different and it's independent like wikipedia, which makes it a bit more suspicious and sinister. it has rather "controlled" agenda which is opposite to wikipedia that allows freedom and choice. and i was even surprised to read that they are even planning to re-write the bible.
    YYYEEEEAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

  5. #5
    Strange Times Dark. is making a name for themselves Dark. is making a name for themselves Dark.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    2,172
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 88 Times in 71 Posts

    Re: Conservapedia or Wikipedia

    Wikipedia all the way. I defend Wikipedia all the time, I can't stand people who write it off right away because "it can be edited by anyone". I explain to these people the constant moderation of the site, the citations, and how it empathizes getting real experts, not just the masses, to help in writing the articles in ways that are as objective as possible. The site is not perfect, no site is, but considering how they do things I'd say it's pretty accurate for the general concept stuff most of the time. I've used the site many times to grasp concepts in computer science, used their citation page as a sort of starting point for finding other sources, it's a one-stop information shop to me. I heard about Conservapedia, and I find the concept of an encyclopedia written specifically through the scope of political ideologies to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Anyone who takes that site seriously is a tool of their politics, I'm sorry. You can bitch about bias on Wikipedia, but at least they have headlines that announce those bias to the reader. All Conservapedia can do for you is give you the point of view of conservatives on various topics. If you were to use that as a source of fact, I'd have to laugh at you. Now using Wikipedia as a source directly is foolhardy too, but at least they provide sources that you can judge for yourself. Not to say Conservapedia doesn't cite sources, I'm just saying based off your guys' examples of their writing bias, I'm not impressed.

  6. #6
    Leave me alone, fanboys! rematche is making a name for themselves rematche is making a name for themselves rematche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,801
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 49 Times in 46 Posts

    Re: Conservapedia or Wikipedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark. View Post
    Wikipedia all the way. I defend Wikipedia all the time, I can't stand people who write it off right away because "it can be edited by anyone". I explain to these people the constant moderation of the site, the citations, and how it empathizes getting real experts, not just the masses, to help in writing the articles in ways that are as objective as possible. The site is not perfect, no site is, but considering how they do things I'd say it's pretty accurate for the general concept stuff most of the time. I've used the site many times to grasp concepts in computer science, used their citation page as a sort of starting point for finding other sources, it's a one-stop information shop to me. I heard about Conservapedia, and I find the concept of an encyclopedia written specifically through the scope of political ideologies to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Anyone who takes that site seriously is a tool of their politics, I'm sorry. You can bitch about bias on Wikipedia, but at least they have headlines that announce those bias to the reader. All Conservapedia can do for you is give you the point of view of conservatives on various topics. If you were to use that as a source of fact, I'd have to laugh at you. Now using Wikipedia as a source directly is foolhardy too, but at least they provide sources that you can judge for yourself. Not to say Conservapedia doesn't cite sources, I'm just saying based off your guys' examples of their writing bias, I'm not impressed.
    man i think i might have different opinion after reading conservapedia...
     click to show spoiler
    YYYEEEEAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

  7. #7
    Newbie Nocturne is off to a good start Nocturne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hidin' in your windows, snatchn' your people up.
    Posts
    85
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 14 Times in 10 Posts

    Re: Conservapedia or Wikipedia

    I was browsing Conservapedia earlier, and I don't like how biased it is.
    When it comes to certain information I try to find a wiki dedicated to one topic. Wikipedia is too broad and isn't as thorough on their pages as they could be.

    If I need to cite anything, I don't really use wiki or any wikia for that matter. I love the information there , but if I do cite a wiki page in a research paper the professors groan thinking I was lazy and grasping for ideas for my paper. I don't like being in that position.

    So, I pan through Google looking for .org/.edu/.gov websites with nearly the same exact information as a wikia or Wikipedia. It's not fun.

    and i was even surprised to read that they are even planning to re-write the bible.
    ..How does that work out?

    Orochimaru Fangirl ♥ | MMO Junkie

  8. #8
    Leave me alone, fanboys! rematche is making a name for themselves rematche is making a name for themselves rematche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,801
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 49 Times in 46 Posts

    Re: Conservapedia or Wikipedia

    Quote Originally Posted by Nocturne View Post
    I was browsing Conservapedia earlier, and I don't like how biased it is.
    When it comes to certain information I try to find a wiki dedicated to one topic. Wikipedia is too broad and isn't as thorough on their pages as they could be.

    If I need to cite anything, I don't really use wiki or any wikia for that matter. I love the information there , but if I do cite a wiki page in a research paper the professors groan thinking I was lazy and grasping for ideas for my paper. I don't like being in that position.

    So, I pan through Google looking for .org/.edu/.gov websites with nearly the same exact information as a wikia or Wikipedia. It's not fun.



    ..How does that work out?
    i suggest you should include alternative references aside from wiki even though the results are the same, so that you can have an amount of sources, evidences and facts that you can present to your professor. not to mention that you can also show him that you don't stick to one source to support your claims.

    as for conservapedia's bible, i can say that this is how nazism began.
    YYYEEEEAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts