User talk:Sublime Satire

Why the change to Conservapedia?
Hi - could you please describe your reasoning behind from the Conservapedia article? One of your previous edit summaries that involved the same removal states "I'm just going to keep deleting this section- Conservapedia is ex vi termini bias, it's in the name. Calling them out for it is wonderfully redundant." Alas, that argument really has no base to it - a name is a name, and nothing more. Yes, it might be obvious that a site named Conservapedia would draw criticism, but it does nonetheless (along with virtually any other website), so it should be said in an article, especially since Conservapedia has especially drawn negative light to itself. ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rationale
That logic applies in an equitable manner to pages of other politically slanted entities, e.g., the DNC and GOP. Those articles should hold criticism for bias as "a name is a name, and nothing more", and moreover, "especially since (The DNC or GOP) has especially drawn negative light to itself."

What's left is inaccuracies, which makes the key to the argument as who is responsible for the negative light, and what they were criticizing. The following three articles are cited to demonstrate "bias and inaccuracies.":

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/10/conservatizing-the-bible.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/01/afactofonesown1

Each of the three highlight Conservapedia's conservatism-no surprise, of course- but the only article which elucidates any inaccuracy is the second. This is problematic for two reasons: First, as a blog, it features personal opinions which alone violates Verifiability. Second, it decries Conservapedia as inaccurate for their conservative interpretation of the Bible, which, as a book subjective by nature, makes arguments over interpretation moot, especially when done in the context of Wikipedia.


 * Thanks for you reply, along with your analysis of the sources. I see what you're saying, but I'm not in full agreement with your reasoning for the removal of the statement that Conservapedia has been criticized for its bias. The DNC and GOP are politically slanted, but that's because they are political parties - they are meant to be slanted. Conservapedia, on the other hand, as much as it is politically slanted, is not a political party; it's an encyclopedia. Because of that, I think equating Conservapedia to political parties is irrelevant, and instead it should be equated to the likes of other encyclopedias. Every encyclopedia has components of their system of which they are widely criticized for. Conservapedia being biased is one of Conservapedia's criticisms; note, however, that when it is stated that Conservapedia has been criticized for its bias, I think that it is often not Conservapedia's views that are being criticized (note that Conservapedia has been criticized from both the left and the right for its bias), but purely Conservapedia's un-traditional mission and system of creating a politically and religiously slanted encyclopedia. Now, one wouldn't criticize the GOP for being biased, as it's a political group - of course it's biased, as you state. But it is that system of running an encyclopedia with a certain POV that is being criticized for Conservapedia. I do think that there is a flaw in the wording of saying that "Conservapedia has been criticized for its bias", and that a better thing to state would be something along the lines of "Conservapedia has been criticized for producing an encyclopedia from a certain political and conservative viewpoint". I do believe that there are reliable sources that display this.


 * As for the part regarding factual errors, I agree that the blog is certainly not a very reliable source to back up that claim. However, looking at some of the other sources given, I do believe there may be some reliable ones that do describe inaccuracies occurring, mostly in the form of vandalism or parodies. I'll see if I can take a closer look when I have time, and then adjust the article accordingly but otherwise, unless I can find something that explicitly calls out Conservapedia on factual errors, then I agree with you on its removal.


 * Thanks, ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 03:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)