February 5th, 2013 at 7:19 pm by Mark
Tags: back to the future, movies, research, samuel l jackson
And, just like that, Wikipedia was edited by some anonymous boob to reflect 2013 instead of what’s actually in the damn movie. (see link) This is why you don’t use it as a primary resource for anything worthwhile…
Add to Favorites |
Permalink
| Comments Off on Doesn’t Anyone Research Past Wikipedia Any More?
March 14th, 2007 at 1:52 pm by Zacque
Tags: conservapedia, conservative, internet, liberal, neal-boortz, npr, politics, religion, research, wikipedia
Today, on my way back to my office I happened to catch National Public Radio’s Evening Edition. The story was about a new web reference source in response to Wikipedia. Evidently there are a group of individuals who believe Wikipedia to be too liberal. I am not saying that this group of individuals is wrong, but they came to this conclusion based on the statistics of a poll by Wikipedia editors.
There are several bits of flawed logic with this idea. The assumption that the editors of Wikipedia aren’t human because as a straight set of data this poll would leave no room for human error or a lack of honesty. These facts are statistics. Statistics by nature can be used to sway one way or another. If not lawyers wouldn’t be so profitable. However, the major problem with consevapedia.com, is the misuse of the word conservative.
The main example can be shown by comparing the definitions of the word kangaroo on both sites: Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Okay, I am fine with either of them until I get to the Origins section of the Conservapedia definition. The first thing listed is a creationist theory explanation. That in itself was fishy enough for me to check the dictionary for the definition.
The Oxford dictionary (I would have used Merriam-Webster, but the link wouldn’t pull up) states that a conservative is “(in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas.” If this is the case then where does interjecting religious beliefs into the origin of a species come into play? A true conservative world should not include religion. Religion is much more defined either one way or another.
Conservapedia.com even goes on to say “A conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.” Where does this give them the right to inteject a secular religious viewpoint, much less stake a claim of moral virtue? If they are truly conservative should they not list the scientific information first?
With that in mind I would like to propose a new web address for this website: severelyscrewypedia.com
Add to Favorites |
Permalink
| 4 Comments