Wikipedia too liberally biased

[francolettieri]

Actually, not really. Wikipedia is too reality biased. If you prefer religious ideology instead of reality, or just want to laugh your head off, checked out conservapedia.com founded by Andrew Schlafly, he is the son of the conservative Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. It was created becuase of the so called "liberal bias" of wikipedia.com. The website is halarious!!!!! It really gives you a good feel of the humerous yet scary would of the religiously obsessed!! Check it out. http://www.conservapedia.com

[Captain Hilts]

1. Wiki is too inaccurate on too many things. nt

[Bonn1997]

6. If I want some decent introductory information on something that's not too

important, I do go to Wikipedia. I've read Wikipedia topics in my area of specialization just for the fun of it and I think it's usually very good--not as good as professional-peer reviewed writing obviously--but good for a quick introduction. In my area I've never found something that was totally wrong. At times descriptions may be incomplete but still useful though.

[Warpy]

7. Same here, it's a good first source

and, like an old encyclopedia, the real meat is in the bibliography/links.

Wiki is a good place to start, in other words.

I generally consult it to refresh my memory on scientific minutiae rather than historical lore. That's probably why I've found few errors to correct.

[Bonn1997]

10. Yeah, exactly. I do the same things.

Sometimes if I just need to refresh my memory, it's a lot easier to use wikipedia than to search through all my journal articles and textbooks. And even though I need my memory refreshed, I know the area well enough that I could tell if something was factually incorrect.

[nemo137]

12. "Where have I heard that name?"

Exactly.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Yes, I do the same. For links. But biographies are infamously inaccurate. Cliques feud over

the lives of the famous horrifically on Wiki. And on IMDB. In fact, a friend of mine is listed on IMDB as being married with three kids. She's single with none!

[Confusious]

15. Depends

300 years ago, pretty accurate.

30 days ago? don't care, don't read, consider it gossip.

[mrcheerful]

2. Your right it is funny heres a qoute off the main page...

A leader is a dealer in hope.

Napoleon Bonaparte

WTF, conservatives don't want hope they thrive off doom and gloom BOL.

[madrchsod]

3. the world is evolving without them

[Selatius]

4. On non-political topics, wikipedia is pretty strong, quite strong.

Go look up information on, say, atomic theory or beta-voltaics or diesel engines. You shouldn't see garbage and falsehoods populating those kinds of pages.

[Hissyspit]

11. On the flip side, go look at the page on Cher.

It was clearly written by a fan with limited English-speaking skills. Or go look at the Ronald Reagan page. It is clearly being guarded by right-wing editors.

It's true. It depends on the topic. The technical topics tend to be the best.

[DefenseLawyer]

5. Reality has a well known liberal bias. n/t

[rurallib]

8. First trip there. Geez, it looks EXACTLY like wikipedia

do conservatives copy everything?
do they ever have an original thought?
or is this yet another instance of trying to confuse users?

ETA - entry on Pete Seeger:
"Pete Seeger is an American folk singer and activist. Seeger sang with the folk group the Weavers, and is also known for expressing his communist leanings.

Pete Seger was the director and editor of People's Songs, a communist publication. Woody Guthrie, John Hammond, Jr., Lee Hays, Earl Robinson, Walter Lowenfels, Alan Lomax, and Bill Wolff were on the Board of Directors. The Executive secretary was Felix Landau."
===
maybe a bit biased

[spanone]

13. gee, at least it's not obvious...

:sarcasm:

[niyad]

14. welcome to DU--you might also find the conservative bible project amusing.

the "inerrant" word of god has somehow gotten too much inaccurate liberal translation into it (yes, we all note the contradiction there, but they don't)