I am conservative and I think it is very valid to my world view
I am a conservative and I think its somewhat valid to my world view
I am a conservative and it is not at all valid to my world view
I am a liberal and I think it is very valid to my world view
I am a liberal and I think it is somewhat valid to my world view
I am a liberal and it is not at all valid to my world view
I am a libertarian/other and it is very valid to my world view
I am a libertarian/other and it is somewhat valid to my world view
I am a libertarian/other and it is not at all valid to my world view
Other (in a post)
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
Other: What is it?
But after reading the thread, I know, at least obliquely.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
I'm an independent, and I think the writers of conservapedia are arrogant and disrespectful towards liberals. Almost all of their site updates and news updates are about bashing liberals and Obama. It would be nicer and more respectable if they were to build up the conservative world view with facts instead of bashing liberals and Obama. However, much of what I find on the site is pretty valid.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
Conservapedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conservapedia was created in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard-educated attorney and a homeschool teacher. He felt the need to start the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred. Although he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast", as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly became concerned about bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings. Schlafly expressed hope that Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived in Wikipedia.
The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum organization, uses material for various online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia. Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.
Running on MediaWiki software, the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest articles dating from November 22. As of October 2009, Conservapedia contains over 32,316 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany. Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include links to news articles and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism. The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion and politics. Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages. It was, at one point, the most-viewed page on the site.
Conservapedia has unique editorial policies designed to prevent what Schlafly sees as structural and ideological problems with Wikipedia and generalized vandalism.
 Differences from Wikipedia
Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia. Articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as criticism of its alleged liberal ideology. Launching the online encyclopedia project, Schlafly asserted the need for an alternative to Wikipedia due to editorial philosophy conflicts. The site's "Conservapedia Commandments" differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include following a neutral point of view and avoiding original research. In response to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated: "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader", and "Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob".
In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds—so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach". On March 7, 2007 Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that Wikipedia articles apparently prefer to use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly. In response to Schlafly's claim that the Wikipedia policy of allowing both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias, Redmond argued that Wikipedia attracts contributors worldwide and so must use Common Era notation to be more neutral, since CE notation has only a nominal, not numerical, difference with the AD format. He also cited the Wikipedia policies regarding citation of sources and cooperation with other contributors as basis for allowing any factual information to be added.
Last edited by tacomancer; 06-22-10 at 05:51 PM.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
"To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by rights to hand down to them."~ Theodore Roosevelt (Message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907)