Conservapedia

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wikipedia has got competition, www.conservapedia.com . Some folks have realized that the wiki is pure leftish propaganda so they have made a competing site to present the objective, unbiased Truth, no less!!

I must say I have learned something. Had I not known, I would never have guessed that, say, their entry on Fox News was absolute and unbiased scientific fact:

"Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a real new channel which would tell the truth. The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American. Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide.

In 2005 the White House selected Tony Snow from Fox News to be the new White House press secretary which was a great honor for Fox because it showed how well it was presenting the real truth instead of the fake liberal version."

[Jenn! 918]

:lol:

Is this from The Onion?

[mybackpages 0]

Is this from The Onion?

Stop it! FOX news says it "fair and balanced" right on the tv screen. I'm sure they can;t say that unless its true.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

:lol:

Is this from The Onion?

Apparently not.

Funny how "balance" can only be achieved by responding to perceived sub-conscious bias with overt bias.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I'm a conservative, and I've never really thought of Wikipedia as leftist. Sure, anyone can make entries into it, but if articles are vandalized or created poorly (i.e. without citations or have bias), the article generally has a notice up at the top. In fact, most of the time I'd say Wikipedia is pretty fair in how it is written.

I think a conservative or liberal on-line database is just foolish.

[SteveLaura 0]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia, according to Conservapedia:

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[9] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

Oh, the horro[u?]r!

[DeadPoolX 9]

I bet it just depends on who is writing the articles. Maybe more Brits are making entries into Wikipedia than Americans. I don't know. It does seem a little silly to use British-English when speaking about something specifically American though, I have to agree on that. Although I haven't really come across that too often. Maybe I don't use Wikipedia that often or maybe the entries I've looked up have been written by Americans. Whatever the case, it doesn't really bother me either way.

[fozzie 41]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia, according to Conservapedia:

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[9] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

Oh, the horro[u?]r!

We are here in force and we will take the back what is ours!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I bet it just depends on who is writing the articles. Maybe more Brits are making entries into Wikipedia than Americans. I don't know. It does seem a little silly to use British-English when speaking about something specifically American though, I have to agree on that. Although I haven't really come across that too often. Maybe I don't use Wikipedia that often or maybe the entries I've looked up have been written by Americans. Whatever the case, it doesn't really bother me either way.

Eh? Did/do you have this opinion when your local Canuck paper printed something on an event in US?

[DeadPoolX 9]

I bet it just depends on who is writing the articles. Maybe more Brits are making entries into Wikipedia than Americans. I don't know. It does seem a little silly to use British-English when speaking about something specifically American though, I have to agree on that. Although I haven't really come across that too often. Maybe I don't use Wikipedia that often or maybe the entries I've looked up have been written by Americans. Whatever the case, it doesn't really bother me either way.

Eh? Did/do you have this opinion when your local Canuck paper printed something on an event in US?

My local Canadian paper? I've never had a local Canadian paper. I'm a natural-born U.S. Citizen. I live in Texas. Therefore, I am used to using American-English in speech and writing.

[mawilson 2,133]

people ... who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American

Please stop!