Thread: 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.

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...

Originally Posted by BrightShadow_96

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dark.

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

it's funny...i mean, it's soooo anti-free thinking, it looks so satirical even though it's not

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?

Originally Posted by Nocturne

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.