GostHacked Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 Their entry for Gerald Celente is horrible. Quote
GWiz Posted March 21, 2011 Report Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Hmmm, will have to look into it, doesn't hurt to have a source other than wikki, I always wondered about some their info. http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional...ticleid=1000968 Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. Now its time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet! So begins the rallying cry for Conservapedia.com, aspiring right-leaning rival to Wikipedia.org - the online encyclopedia project that now claims 7.2 million articles in 251 languages and traffic that ranks it among the worlds top 15 sites. Wikipedia is adamant about striving to maintain a neutral point of view. But because it is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world, the site acknowledges that critics have questioned Wikipedias reliability and accuracy. Enter Conservapedia. We dont make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does, it asserts. Instead this self-described Trustworthy Encyclopedia offers fair-and-balanced versions of Wikipedia articles in a format intelligently designed to evoke the look of Wikipedia. http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page "fair-and-balanced" WooHooo the Faux News of the internet... Remind me never to go there, thanks... Edited March 21, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
bud Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 Even one of the original founders of wikipedia quit in disgust, who said in a radio interview it was full of liberal bias and inaccuracies. source? Quote http://whoprofits.org/
bloodyminded Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 source? I asked for the same thing. I'm not expecting an answer. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Jack Weber Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 "fair-and-balanced" WooHooo the Faux News of the internet... Remind me never to go there, thanks... Info for kooks!!! And c'mon...Going there is hillarious...It's like an online version of Bizzaro World!! "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Michael Hardner Posted March 23, 2011 Report Posted March 23, 2011 How about Pinochet ? Slight difference here: Conservapedia: General Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte (1915–2006) was a Chilean soldier and politician who became Chile's head of state from 1973 to 1990. He came to power as a member of a council of military leaders after the overthrow of the government of President Salvador Allende. Wikipedia: Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte[note 1] (25 November 1915 – 10 December 2006) was a Chilean army general and dictator who assumed power in a coup d'état on 11 September 1973. More differences: Conservapedia: General Pinochet headed a military government for 17 years (1973-1990), suppressed communist revolutionaries in Chile, and got a new Constitution approved in 1980 that established a gradual and legal path for the return to full democracy.General Pinochet instituted free market reforms in Chile in the 1970s that resulted in lower inflation and an economic boom. During this period, he held a plebiscite on his rule and 75% of the people affirmed their support for his emergency government. During his time in power, including the 1973 coup, at least 1,200 people were killed or vanished. The most common estimate is that 3,000 were killed,[9] while other estimates go as high as 10,000. In addition, over a quarter million Chileans were arrested. Universities were purged of terrorist sympathizers, Marxist books were burned, and rival political parties banned. Thousands of members of the Socialist Party of Chile and the Communist Party of Chile fled the country out of fear of the secret police, which allegedly tortured citizens.[10] A new constitution was adopted in Chile in 1981, which authorized General Pinochet to serve as president for another eight-year term, to be followed by a plebiscite on his presidency. Pinochet moved Chile into a market economy, privatizing many inefficient government businesses, and opening the country to foreign investment. The stability that his government gave encouraged foreign investors to come to Chile. He also started one of the first private pension accounts pension systems in the world, which has been highly successful. Wikipedia: From the beginning, the government implemented harsh measures against its political opponents.[5] According to various reports and investigations 1,200–3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 were interned, and up to 30,000 were tortured by his regime including women and children.[6][7][8] The new government also implemented economic reforms, including the privatization of several state-controlled industries and the rollback of many state welfare institutions. These policies produced what has been referred to as the "miracle of Chile", but the government policies dramatically increased economic inequality[9] and some attribute the devastating effect of the 1982 monetary crisis in the Chilean economy precisely to these policies.[10] And close: Conservapedia: In 1998, the leftists who had long hated Pinochet arranged for his arrest while he was in London receiving medical treatment. An unprecedented arrest warrant was issued in Spain for alleged human rights violations that occurred in Chile while he was president. The stunt failed, and Pinochet was subsequently returned to Chile due to his ill health. He was later indicted and charged with kidnapping 19 supporters of Salvador Allende during the 1973 coup in which Pinochet took power. The Chilean Supreme Court suspended the prosecution in July 2002, again due to Pinochet's continuing poor health.Pinochet died of a heart attack on December 10, 2006.[13] Wikipedia: After peacefully stepping down in 1990, Pinochet continued to serve as Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army until 10 March 1998, when he retired and became a senator-for-life in accordance with the 1980 Constitution. In 2004, Chilean Judge Juan Guzmán Tapia ruled that Pinochet was medically fit to stand trial and placed him under house arrest.[3] By the time of his death on 10 December 2006, about 300 criminal charges were still pending against him in Chile for numerous human rights violations, tax evasion and embezzlement during his 17-year rule and afterwards.[12] Pinochet was accused of having corruptly amassed a wealth of US$28 million or more.[13] Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Shakeyhands Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 How about Pinochet ? Slight difference here: Obviously he was just misunderstood. And hey, he took care of those "leftists" so he couldn't be all that bad... Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Jack Weber Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 Obviously he was just misunderstood. And hey, he took care of those "leftists" so he couldn't be all that bad... He did "take care of them"... But I don't believe Crankopedia mentioned that Salvador Allende was done away with (committed suicide...allegedly )the admitted complicity of the CIA and Henry Kissinger's personal involvment.... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Shady Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 The biggest complaint I've heard from conservatives, at least American conservatives. Is that it takes forever, and in some cases never, to get lies and slanderous things people have submitted on their profies on Wikipedia removed. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 The biggest complaint I've heard from conservatives, at least American conservatives. Is that it takes forever, and in some cases never, to get lies and slanderous things people have submitted on their profies on Wikipedia removed. Like what? An example or two would be interesting to see. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
wyly Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 I've never noticed a 'bias' on Wiki... must just be me. I'll use wiki for personal reference and to link to other sources but cite it as source, never... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 Now, here's the thing. If "Conservapedia" ever takes off in any significant way, it will also attract people with passionate opinions on subjects. What happens then?the same that happens when someone cites wiki as source on any uni paper, automatic fail... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 Even one of the original founders of wikipedia quit in disgust, who said in a radio interview it was full of liberal bias and inaccuracies.who quit, and when and dig up the interview...otherwise it's bs... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Michael Hardner Posted March 24, 2011 Report Posted March 24, 2011 A Liberalpedia would be useful, but only to compare against the other two alternatives... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.