I came across this article today, and the thing that disturbed me most about it was not the Japanese ball-smacking game, but the casual link to this website: The Most Biased 'Encyclopaedia' Ever Does anyone actually think this website is trustworthy and unbiased? If so, I'd really like to know why. In detail.
Okay, I'm intrigued. First, is there any truly unbiased source? Everything I say is biased by my point of view and everything you say is biased by yours. At least this site admits to a bias and identifies where the bias is coming from for you. Next, why do you think this is the most biased encyclopedia? Is there a particular word you looked up and said to yourself, "Wow, now that entry is biased?? Is it the name of the encyclopedia that caused the reaction or something you read in it? Did you read the name and decide to look for a reason to call the site bias?
I was being nice. It's going. I made it to second semester, now I'll see if I can make it through the entire first year without losing my freaking mind.
I know the feeling.. I just started the nursing major last week. Ungodly amounts of info. and homework.. holy crap.
Okay, I may have exaggerated my title link slightly, but only for effect. At the time that I wrote this post, I was overwhelmed and resorted to sarcasm, as I often do. The thing that got to me most about the site was that the first thing your eye sees when you visit is the words "The trustworthy encyclopaedia" written underneath the logo - accompanied by the line "the truth shall set you free" written in the opening statement (located at the top left of the page, next to the logo. Then, the fact that it's called "Conservapedia" - ie, the conservative encyclopaedia; Then, the fact that there are bible quotes littering the front page; Then, the fact that the day I discovered the site, there was a glowing article about the Republican party featured on the front page (which stayed up there as the "featured article" for over a fortnight); The fact that the news article links on the right hand side of the page are always either positive news articles about the right-wing, or negative news articles about the left-wing; Number 9 of the Conservapedia Commandments: We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules. ... and the list goes on. Conservapedia basically states that Wikipedia is a liberal, left-biased Encyclopaedia. But as far as I can tell, Wikipedia doesn't openly support the left-wing American government - definitely not on a level comparable to Conservapedia's open support of the Christian Right. When you visit Wikipedia, all you are told on the front page is that it is the "free" encyclopaedia. The featured news articles today, for example, are all world news articles (none are focused on the current American election campaigns) - and the featured encyclopaedia article is a piece on an historical pirate. There is no obvious bias that I can discern.
I know that. Mainly I was just f-cking with you. Again, at least they tell you where the bias is coming from. Those sneaky liberals try to disguise their bias as impartial fact? That?s why Wikipedia seems so innocent. Hmmm. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe that few people are writing for and reading that encyclopedia, and that is why the articles stay up so long? Well come on. Look at the name of the site. They never claimed to be anything else.
