Giving conservatives a bad name...again

[farmboy]

Ultraconservativism has officially been given an open platform: http://www.conservapedia.com.  Apparently, Wikipedia has a liberal bias.
Honestly, this is sad.  Is this really what some people think?  For example: liberal bias is defined as "One manifestation of liberal bias is partisan bias towards liberal positions or policies in many mainstream media," while conservative bias is "a term used by liberals to criticize expressions of conservative values in entertainment and the media."  Are they serious?

Every page is a new opportunity to shake one's head.

[MONOLITH]

There's idiots on both sides of the fence.

As soon as I saw a 'bible quote of the day' I knew it was junk.

Just like the far left, there's a far right; and they all should be shot.

[Zazoo]

I can't say I've noticed a liberal bias (or conservative bias) on Wikipedia. Some articles have a bit of a slant to them, but that's what happens with an open project like this. The community does a pretty good job of balancing things though, particularly in articles about controversial subjects. You often see a header stating that the neutrality of an article is disputed -- so even if there is a bias, one way or the other, it's quickly flagged by others.

~Mike

[Lazerblade]

Speaking of... Cindy Sheehan was less than 10 minutes from my location this past week. Wish I had known sooner. Another assassination opportunity missed. Damn.

[MONOLITH]

No, let her live. Now that's she's turned on the democrats, it's great.  

[110]

There's idiots on both sides of the fence.

As soon as I saw a 'bible quote of the day' I knew it was junk.

Just like the far left, there's a far right; and they all should be shot.

A Centrist Extremist eh?


I thought the founder of Wikipedia was a Libertarian.

[farmboy]

doesn't mean the contributors are.