Conservapedia - WTF?

[drougan]

In my innagural CE/P thread, I present to you the Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com) !

I'm not gonna get too far into it except to say that their Ancient History (http://www.conservapedia.com/Ancient_History_Terms) Section only goes back as far as 5000 BC and this snippet from their About Page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About).

Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!

Conservapedia began in November 2006, as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students meeting in New Jersey.

Conservapedia has since grown enormously, including contributors worldwide. Conservapedia already exceeds the number of entries in the Oxford Dictionary of World History. Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind.

We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.

[Breeze]

http://www.jamminshirts.com/catalog/a9_1_39_1.JPG

[markalot]

Good grief.

I can understand their point, but their solution is to create something just as inaccurate?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-schlafly19jun19,0,1038574.story?page=1&coll=la-home-nation

My favorite entry from the article:

A hike in minimum wage is referred to as "a controversial manoeuvre that increases the incentive for young people to drop out of school."

Yea, I love it. Conservapedia rules!

And the state of the economy under President Bush? Much better than the "liberal media" would have you think: "For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."

Bitchin.

[drougan]

My favorite entry from the article:

A hike in minimum wage is referred to as "a controversial manoeuvre that increases the incentive for young people to drop out of school."



Really, you favor that one over the one about Hillary?

But consider the entry on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (b. 1947). She "may suffer from a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office" — namely, "clinical narcissism," Conservapedia asserts. Evidence of her instability includes her "ever-changing opinion of the Iraq war." Though Schlafly demands that entries be rigorously footnoted, these sentences are not.

;)

[drougan]

Actually, I find this part of that article very disturbing and sad.

Such aggression [malicious editing] has reinforced the view among some Conservapedia writers that left-wingers are out to suppress their free speech.

"I had heard it spoken of, but it had never really hit home before just how hostile they are," said a 15-year-old in New Jersey whose mother asked that her name not be used.

The girl, who is home-schooled, wrote an article for Conservapedia on Irish dancing and uses the site to research papers. But the biggest lesson she's taken away as a young conservative is: "There are people who want to destroy us."

[markalot]

There are people who want to destroy us."

So she's wrong? ;)

[Breeze]

So she's wrong? ;)

Maybe not about the intent itself, but perhaps about will do the "destroying."

[Ikyoto]

If your going to go to conservapedia....don't forget to make a stop at qubetv.tv (http://qubetv.tv/)

[drougan]

So she's wrong? ;)

haha...


Well, I don't want to destroy her, but I wouldn't mind if Conservapedia ceased to exist. ;)

[Predot listener]

Spoken, I suspect, without a touch or irony.

Schlafly ... defends the Clinton article on balance as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective."

[drougan]

Its such an interesting phenomenon. Historically, a fringe group that disagreed with the mainstream would simply move away, start a new town or colony or something geographically separated from the rest of the world. In the Information Age, where geographical isolationism is impossible, fringe dwellers create a new virtual world full of the information they want to hear in the manner they want to hear it. It takes so little effort anymore to lend this world the same credibility and the mainstream information outlet. A website is easier to build than a cathedral, but it packs the same punch in terms of symbology. Yet it's crazy to think that if one person out of 100 has an opinion/idea/worldview that it carries the same weight as the idea held by the other 99.

[Predot listener]

Its such an interesting phenomenon. Historically, a fringe group that disagreed with the mainstream would simply move away, start a new town or colony or something geographically separated from the rest of the world. In the Information Age, where geographical isolationism is impossible, fringe dwellers create a new virtual world full of the information they want to hear in the manner they want to hear it. It takes so little effort anymore to lend this world the same credibility and the mainstream information outlet. A website is easier to build than a cathedral, but it packs the same punch in terms of symbology. Yet it's crazy to think that if one person out of 100 has an opinion/idea/worldview that it carries the same weight as the idea held by the other 99.


Why would the opinion of one person carry carry the same weight as one held by 99 others?

Until Conservapedia gets the number of hits, entries and overall trust from the general public, it is what it is - a fringe site that will appeal to hardcore followers but draw almost no attention from the larger public. I can think of thousands of other sites just like it, including this one.

[candy4140]

"Everyone knows...reality has a liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

[mike]

This site is the dumbest farking thing since the Creation Museum.

[drougan]

Why would the opinion of one person carry carry the same weight as one held by 99 others?


Well, that one person feels as though his opinion carries that same validity, I should say.

It's scary because it feigns the same level of credibility and authority as the mainstream, and reinforces the wackiness. One could say similar things about us here at Woxy doing something similar, but what goes on at woxy has little to do with belief and faith and isolates us far less than these individuals isolate themselves.

[markalot]

While I'm bothered by this new pedia I'm also bothered by the fact that liberals tend to see everything as neutral without realizing bias is built in. Wikipedia, especially on political issues, is extremely biased. Yea, their viewpoint probably agrees with most of yours, but that's not the point.

So the end result is we get two biased information sources, with wikipedia being light years better than any jesusfreakapedia, but still containing a noted slant.

I'm waiting for the libertarapedia.

[bestlaidplans]

While I'm bothered by this new pedia I'm also bothered by the fact that liberals tend to see everything as neutral without realizing bias is built in.
Reality has a well known liberal bias. ;)

[Breeze]

While I'm bothered by this new pedia I'm also bothered by the fact that liberals tend to see everything as neutral without realizing bias is built in. Wikipedia, especially on political issues, is extremely biased. Yea, their viewpoint probably agrees with most of yours, but that's not the point.

So the end result is we get two biased information sources, with wikipedia being light years better than any jesusfreakapedia, but still containing a noted slant.

I'm waiting for the libertarapedia.

So you're not waiting for something without a slant--just a slant you like?

[the happy prole]

That's the thing. The political spectrum goes like this:

conservative------------middle------------liberal.

So if you identify yourself as a conservative, then your opinion is more conservative than the majority of the US. Duh. Of course you are going to find the average article too liberal for your taste.

The world doesn't have a liberal bias, YOU HAVE A CONSERVATIVE BIAS. You think like a conservative. You have conservative views. That's why you call yourself a "conservative." Why the hell would you expect to agree with any publication that tries to present a balanced viewpoint when you are not balanced?

[candy4140]

While I'm bothered by this new pedia I'm also bothered by the fact that liberals tend to see everything as neutral without realizing bias is built in. Wikipedia, especially on political issues, is extremely biased. Yea, their viewpoint probably agrees with most of yours, but that's not the point.

So the end result is we get two biased information sources, with wikipedia being light years better than any jesusfreakapedia, but still containing a noted slant.

I'm waiting for the libertarapedia.

Find me SOMETHING in wiki that has a liberal slant. I think if someone says "the bible is a book written 2000 years ago that claims to be the word of God"...some might see that as a liberal slant, but let's be factual. That IS a fact...whether it is REALLY the word of god IS just an opinion no matter how bad someone wants believe it. It IS a book that CLAIMS to be the word of god..no more, no less. That's not liberal bias, that's a fact.

A liberal slant would be "Fox News is out to destroy the world", but saying "FOX news reports on conservative stories 80% of the time" is a fact.

[markalot]

That's the thing. The political spectrum goes like this:

conservative------------middle------------liberal.

So if you identify yourself as a conservative, then your opinion is more conservative than the majority of the US. Duh. Of course you are going to find the average article too liberal for your taste.

The world doesn't have a liberal bias, YOU HAVE A CONSERVATIVE BIAS. You think like a conservative. You have conservative views. That's why you call yourself a "conservative." Why the hell would you expect to agree with any publication that tries to present a balanced viewpoint when you are not balanced?

I never claimed not to have bias. But now I'm curious. How can you be right and I be wrong about wikipedia? Are you unbiased? Or is it only liberals who are capable of recognizing un-bias? :rolleyes:

[markalot]

Find me SOMETHING in wiki that has a liberal slant. I think if someone says "the bible is a book written 2000 years ago that claims to be the word of God"...some might see that as a liberal slant, but let's be factual. That IS a fact...whether it is REALLY the word of god IS just an opinion no matter how bad someone wants believe it. It IS a book that CLAIMS to be the word of god..no more, no less. That's not liberal bias, that's a fact.

A liberal slant would be "Fox News is out to destroy the world", but saying "FOX news reports on conservative stories 80% of the time" is a fact.

Oh god, this is soo hard ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan

starts with:
President Reagan's economic record is mixed, although his tenure marked a period of economic prosperity for most Americans.

But it was mixed.

And now the Reagan haters will come on and tell me how bad Reagan was etc etc

Remember, all I'm claiming is how ridiculous it is to claim wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias.

[Unrequited]

although his tenure marked a period of economic prosperity for most Americans.


Looks like that statement could be interpreted as a conservative slant. :confused:

[markalot]

Looks like that statement could be interpreted as a conservative slant. :confused:


Certainly, if you chop it up to fit your needs. I included the entire sentence from the article.

[Unrequited]

Certainly, if you chop it up to fit your needs. I included the entire sentence from the article.

But that's just it, interpreting bias is going to be influenced by the perspective of the reader, liberal or conservative. If someone wrote "Reagan brought about the fall of the Soviet Union", a conservative will claim that is a fact, a liberal will say it is not a fact, it's an opinion. It's not like you're reporting the score of a baseball game.

[drougan]

Oh god, this is soo hard ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan

starts with:
President Reagan's economic record is mixed, although his tenure marked a period of economic prosperity for most Americans.

But it was mixed.

And now the Reagan haters will come on and tell me how bad Reagan was etc etc

Remember, all I'm claiming is how ridiculous it is to claim wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias.

Actually it starts with:

Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981 – 1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967 – 1975). In fact most of the introductory section sticks to the facts only with one or two sentences schizophrenically changing the tone of the piece for a moment, but mostly it stays away from slanting.

Better than what I can say for your attempt at slant ;)

I think part of the problem with Wikipedia is the lack of continuity in the editing of the articles and an excess of information overall. It allows too much information to be out there and too many things to be dissected and redirected on a point by point basis. You an tell where things have been inserted that just seem a bit off or feel amaturish, and that kind of sucks.

[markalot]

But that's just it, interpreting bias is going to be influenced by the perspective of the reader, liberal or conservative.

And that's all I'm claiming isn't it? So are you claiming wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias and if so how can you tell?

Wikipedia is good, and each article not under review contains the facts, but it also sneaks in commentary as in the sentence I included. It's not hard to see, and it doesn't make it worthless, I just reject those who say it doesn't have a liberal bias.

conservapedia isn't than answer, it doesn't even contain facts, but that's not the point.

[Duemellon]

Certainly, if you chop it up to fit your needs. I included the entire sentence from the article.Uhm... when there is a statistical disparity or something that has an interpretive difference it's is Wikipedia's responsibility to either resolving the disparity or explain the divergence of view.

To say Reagan's presidency was definitely a period of economic boom would be to statistically leave out the swelling ranks of the poor. To say it was definitely bad would ignore the huge profits made by stockowners & high ranking corporate officers.

What would the "truth" be from your own keyboard, MaL?

[Unrequited]

And that's all I'm claiming isn't it? So are you claiming wikipedia doesn't have a liberal bias and if so how can you tell?

Actually, I don't trust Wikipedia on anything. It's a shady construct. You never know if the person who wrote it actually knows what they are talking about or if they are a third grader. There was a recent incident where an avid Wikipedia contributor claimed to have a doctorate in religous studies, instead he was some flunkie 20 something.

[markalot]

I think part of the problem with Wikipedia is the lack of continuity in the editing of the articles and an excess of information overall.

That's a big part of how slant is introduced. Take the abortion article, for example. From my slant it includes a lot of esoteric information that might be used to build a pro abortion case, but would not normally be used to talk about abortion. It's fact, and it's presented without any slant in my opinion, but then I ask myself why is it there?

I picture some pro abortion advocate looking at the article and then carefully inserting a section that doesn't appear biased, but bolsters his or her position. Next day the other side comes in and adds some more. This would explain why some articles are so stinking long.

And then you have the editors. Unbiased? Trained journalists? Really?

[markalot]

What would the "truth" be from your own keyboard, MaL?

I will not pretend to offer you the truth Due.

[drougan]

Uhm... when there is a statistical disparity or something that has an interpretive difference it's is Wikipedia's responsibility to either resolving the disparity or explain the divergence of view.

To say Reagan's presidency was definitely a period of economic boom would be to statistically leave out the swelling ranks of the poor. To say it was definitely bad would ignore the huge profits made by stockowners & high ranking corporate officers.

What would the "truth" be from your own keyboard, MaL?


I think the root of the problem presented by MaL is the fact that the statement attempts to pass judgement on the administration, and then condition that judgement. What the article should do is break out and outline his achievements as a president, both what he was lauded for in his time and afterwards, and to do the same with his shortfalls.

The sentence MaL used obviously wasn't written by an academic writing for the purposes of history, but some Joe Shmoe with an agenda.

[the happy prole]

I never claimed not to have bias. But now I'm curious. How can you be right and I be wrong about wikipedia? Are you unbiased? Or is it only liberals who are capable of recognizing un-bias? :rolleyes:

I didn't say anything about wikipedia.

I'm just making a point about people being stupid. It's the same thing if you're liberal. You can't expect to agree with things that are written if you've identified yourself as having a liberal stance.

As far as wikipedia goes, there's lots of crappy entries in it. If a conservative or liberal group puts more effort into the maintaining of the web page and edits, etc. then that entry will reflect that group's viewpoints. Almost everything is like that. If you read WOXY's page, it's fairly neutral but it still kind of reads like it was written by WOXY fans and listeners. And of course it is, because who else would put the effort into maintaining that page?

[Duemellon]

The idea of the people owning the knowledge is great. The concept that all they'd do are Baseball Card stats on the back is a waste of time & doesn't, in any way, help the people own the information.

What good does it do for us to have statistical information about the Middle Ages? Wouldn't you like to know what the people felt about the decisions the leadership made? What about the way people accepted weather changes here & there? I think the opinion of the events is something to help give a contemporary view of the event as it passes down.

Beyond that, the idea that someone with a PhD in Bullshitology is the only credible source on the lies so-and-so said is part of the elitist intelligensia most conersvatives detest! The fact is, you can have people go in & vandalize the information, but it's a self-correcting entity. If you really using it as your single source of information on a subject then you're asking yourself to be setup for the downfall.

It's been proven to be more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica. But if you really think reading one particular set of encyclopedias counts as officially knowing the entire comprehensive story, then you're deluding yourself.

One of the greatest things about it, is that it is contemporary. There are articles about events far beyond what you would expect in an encyclopedia. There are articles about Yu-Gi-Oh, mayors of Cincinnati, the riots, scandals, & other things you just can't find. Why? Because someone had the interest to create it & did so instead of waiting for some ivory-towered intellect to "waste their time" investigating the history of the 2006 Cincinnati Bengal season.

[Breeze]

Lewis Black (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/28/daily-show-lewis-black-exposes-right-wing-media-paranoia/) on Conservapedia.

[Predot listener]

Because someone had the interest to create it & did so instead of waiting for some ivory-towered intellect to "waste their time" investigating the history of the 2006 Cincinnati Bengal season.


See also:

Largest Leads Blown

Crime & Punishment

Alcohol Use/Abuse

[Breeze]

See also:

Largest Leads Blown

Crime & Punishment

Alcohol Use/Abuse

Sucking Out Loud

FTFY......

[Predot listener]

FTFY......


That's the beauty of woxypedia. Everyone is an editor.

[Breeze]

That's the beauty of woxypedia. Everyone is an editor.

Whatever his or her bias might be. :)

[markalot]

One of the greatest things about it, is that it is contemporary.

Come now. I like Wikipedia. I did hate it once, but I changed my mind when confronted with the fact that they were no worse than the ivory tower source of information. I posted the results of an investigation as I always do if I can prove myself wrong. That's not the issue.

If more people online who care about wikipedia have a liberal slant then wikipedia will have a liberal slant. If the editors have a liberal slant then wikipedia will have a liberal slant. It's just the way it works. It might be through choice of what facts to present, it might be a bogus sentence floating in a sea of facts, or might not be able to tell if it's biased if an article perfectly matches my bias (though I usually am immediately suspect of anything I totally agree with).

As pointed out, it's easy to see the slant and remove it without adversely effecting all the good work there.

[uselesstomato]

Well, I don't want to destroy her,

i am now humming this :

super furry animals
if you dont want me to destroy you:

"If you don't want me to destroy you
Take a leaf out of my book:
Turn it 'round and have a look

Because I don't want you to destroy me
I'll commit myself to be
In and out of every tree "

[the happy prole]

I haven't read through that page history, but I actually think the Ronald Reagan entry reads that way to be wishy-washy and not present a bias.

The fact that we were economically prosperous can be fairly well substantiated by looking at traditional measures of prosperity like GDP, etc. I think that most reasonable liberals would concede that, and in fact the paragraph goes on to list a bunch of measures all showing economic growth.

At the same time, I don't think it's liberally slanted to say that economic growth is just one measure of a President's economic policy. We did run up a huge budget deficit which I think most conservatives would concede was probably not good. And it's true that Black Monday happened under his watch as well as the S & L scandal. And all of that stuff is in the article as well.

What I think wikipedia should do is just strike that first bit and let the readers decide for themselves what to think about Reagan's economic record. I think that sentence is problematic in that they shouldn't be pronouncing a judgment one way or the other about Reagan's policies as that's inherently political.

I'm just not sure that's a liberal bias, though. I think conservatives will look at that the way markalot does and say "How can you say it's mixed when we enjoyed 'a period of economic prosperity'?" At the same time, I'm sure liberals are looking at that sentence thinking "How can you say it was mixed when he ran up such a crippling deficit? The long-term effects more than outweigh any short-term boost, blahblahblah"

Just strike that first bit and probably everyone's more happy with it. Sometimes not having a point of view at all is better than having a "neutral" point of view.

[candy4140]

That whole "mixed" comment is NOT biased. It might be bad journalism (or vaugue), but that's different than bias.

You can find facts on both sides to show how the economy under him was good for some, bad for others. That's called a fact. I think the problem with conservatives IN GENERAL is they don't understand the definition of the word "bias". They think bias is anything they disagree with. That's not bias, that's called interpretation.

There's a big difference between "Reagan was the worst president ever" and "Reagan did many unpopular and ineffective things during his presidency". One can be factually proven by stats and voting records, the other is just an unmeasurable opinion (bias).

I think anyone that never took a degree in something liberal arts related, missed all the philosophy and analytical courses that allow one to see the difference between a bias and shoddy fact writing. But..that's just my opinion...I can't really base that on any stats.

[Duemellon]

I think anyone that never took a degree in something liberal arts related, missed all the philosophy and analytical courses that allow one to see the difference between a bias and shoddy fact writing. But..that's just my opinion...I can't really base that on any stats.No, what you said was fact.

[candy4140]

No, what you said was fact.

I was trying not to sound like too much of an ass..but...eh..you're right, that probably could be proven. Hee.

[Predot listener]

No, what you said was fact.

Well that seems terribly elitist. My mom didn't have any kind of education beyond high school, and I think she would have been able to tell the difference.

[Duemellon]

Well that seems terribly elitist. My mom didn't have any kind of education beyond high school, and I think she would have been able to tell the difference.Now that's silly.

[Predot listener]

Now that's silly.

How so? Why would someone absolutely require a liberal arts education to be able to discern between bias and shoddy writing. I can understand where it might help, but I don't think it's a necessity.

[Duemellon]

How so? Why would someone absolutely require a liberal arts education to be able to discern between bias and shoddy writing. I can understand where it might help, but I don't think it's a necessity.I don't think it is either. That's why it's silly for him to not be able to divine fact from bias.

[candy4140]

How so? Why would someone absolutely require a liberal arts education to be able to discern between bias and shoddy writing. I can understand where it might help, but I don't think it's a necessity.

I don't mean you HAVE to have had courses like that...I've known some super smart people with little or no formal education...but that's the "norm". Some people are just smart and/or charismatic without "learning" how to be. But it's rare. The amount of people with only a high school education that go on to be Bill Gates or a great philosopher are few and far between.

I'm just saying for most people...we don't learn DIFFERENT ways to process info without a variety of classes, statistical, and liberal. In general, there is a VAST difference in how people that go to liberal arts schools think...you just need to know enough of them to see that..it's common sense. All of this is a broad generalization, so of course we all know someone that falls out of the "norm"...but that doesn't mean there isn't a "norm". There is. That's not a biased statement, that's just knowing how the world and human nature works.

[markalot]

I don't mean you HAVE to have had courses like that...I've known some super smart people with little or no formal education...but that's the "norm". Some people are just smart and/or charismatic without "learning" how to be. But it's rare. The amount of people with only a high school education that go on to be Bill Gates or a great philosopher are few and far between.

You have a lot of learning to do.

College does not teach one how to be smart. A liberal arts college might teach you how to think like a liberal, but to say only then can you discern ... I mean really, thats one of the funniest things I've read in a long long time.

Of course it fits right in with the 'only liberals are smart' thing.

But regardless of political slant, if you're walking around thinking that people have to go to college to be smart you're pretty dumb.

[DaHood]

if you're walking around thinking that people have to go to college to be smart you're pretty dumb.I don't know if I personally would put it that way, but you're right. I know plenty of educated stupid people.

[the happy prole]

I don't think it's that people who don't go to college are always dumber than people who go to college. Nor do I think that you *need* to go to college to learn the kinds of logic and journalism and parsing out of phrases type stuff candyass was talking about.

But they do offer a ton of classes in that kind of stuff (and no it doesn't have to be a traditionally "liberal arts" college), and you don't really pick up those skills in HS. I think most people are perfectly capable of learning how to do it, but yes-- it is to some degree a skill. I think they need to gear HS curriculum less towards raw memorization of facts and more towards "learning how to learn" type stuff.

I don't think it's snobby to say that.

[candy4140]

You have a lot of learning to do.

College does not teach one how to be smart. A liberal arts college might teach you how to think like a liberal, but to say only then can you discern ... I mean really, thats one of the funniest things I've read in a long long time.

Of course it fits right in with the 'only liberals are smart' thing.

But regardless of political slant, if you're walking around thinking that people have to go to college to be smart you're pretty dumb.

You're right. Universities and colleges are completely pointless and don't increase anyone's knowledge or give anyone multiple ways to look at things. I can't believe I spent all that damn money now! Could have just started in a mail room and worked my way up...my knowledge would have been equal to the guy with the MBA.

The only people I ever hear say "college doesn't teach people anything" are people that never went. Interesting.

Sidenote..the number one determining factor on whether someone goes to college is whether or not their parents did.

[the happy prole]

wtf does going to a liberal arts college have to do with being a liberal, anyway?

[Jumpman]

wtf does going to a liberal arts college have to do with being a liberal, anyway?

Don't you know that all professors sit in their "ivory towers" and plot ways to slowly brainwash their students into accepting their liberal agenda. It's only worse at liberal arts schools where professors get to spend all their time subverting today's youth rather than doing research and publishing liberal propaganda in the form of journal articles.

[Mr. Mystery]

That's the thing. The political spectrum goes like this:

conservative------------middle------------liberal.

So if you identify yourself as a conservative, then your opinion is more conservative than the majority of the US. Duh. Of course you are going to find the average article too liberal for your taste.
Why the hell would you expect to agree with any publication that tries to present a balanced viewpoint when you are not balanced?

I'd like to revisit this post, treating the "you" as non-specific to any individual. I have noticed voices decrying the simply non-conservative as "liberal," for the reasons above. I think bias happens in both directions, although I wonder if the truth in some charges of "liberal bias" is often muddled by the charges also being made towards coverage that is simply not agreeable or favorable to the conservative reader/viewer.

This thread sort of reminds me of hearing people talk about reading up on equal parts liberal- and conservative-biased content to somehow get their internal scale zeroed, rather than just working to recognize non-biased content.

[markalot]

The only people I ever hear say "college doesn't teach people anything" are people that never went. Interesting.

Who said that? You equated smart with college, not learning.

[sparkie]

Who said that? You equated smart with college, not learning.

Jesus, I have to agree with MaL for once, as a B school grad I know more than a fair share of "educated" that have not learned a drop of worth. Here's to the future leaders of the "free" world

But the biggest lesson she's taken away as a young conservative is: "There are people who want to destroy us."

And then I realized my impression of america and the world was completely inaccurate.


All people are biased or believe in some slant, as every stance has a bias, well except the below (something tells me to trust them). No one wants to find that their beliefs are biased or worse yet complete bunk. Not me I'll never be duped again.

http://www.alphaleasing.com/images/Buttons/NoBias1.jpg

[tempo]

While I'm bothered by this new pedia I'm also bothered by the fact that liberals tend to see everything as neutral without realizing bias is built in. Wikipedia, especially on political issues, is extremely biased. Yea, their viewpoint probably agrees with most of yours, but that's not the point.

So the end result is we get two biased information sources, with wikipedia being light years better than any jesusfreakapedia, but still containing a noted slant.

I'm waiting for the libertarapedia.

Alas, there's no such thing as unbiased writing/speech. First (and most importantly) you have to decide waht to include and what not to include. Even that reflects your own set of assumptions and values.

"Unbiased" and "balanced" are such vague terms, but that doesn't seem to stop people from throwing them around. Result: endless circular debates that basically just reflect a sense of mistrust.

[candy4140]

Who said that? You equated smart with college, not learning.

No, other people INFERRED that. My original point was that taking liberal arts type courses in college TEACH people to view things from different angles and THINK in different ways. Non liberal arts colleges/courses don't typically offer that.

The "overly sensitive" in the bunch here somehow read that as "hey...you didn't go to college..you're not smart!"..which I find a laughable jump to a conclusion..something a person with a HUGE insecurity about his/her smarts might do. This all sort of proves my point about misinterpretation and not being able to think critically...but not sure to what extent. Once again, there's a difference between a bias and a fact that someone just doesn't like or want to hear.

Sort of reminds me of that expression "the true sign of intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposing viewpoints at one time and still retain the ability to function"

[candy4140]

Alas, there's no such thing as unbiased writing/speech. First (and most importantly) you have to decide waht to include and what not to include. Even that reflects your own set of assumptions and values.

"Unbiased" and "balanced" are such vague terms, but that doesn't seem to stop people from throwing them around. Result: endless circular debates that basically just reflect a sense of mistrust.

It is true that NOTHING is written without an agenda. I think of a funny Paul Feig book where he says that looking over his own childhood diaries he can tell he even sensored himself b/c he figured God was still reading.

I think the bias is what drives certain types of journalism, but it can drive a journalist to find facts that otherwise wouldn't be found out..and that doesn't mean the entire piece is biased. Michael Moore has a bias that drives him to make films based on certain topics...but many of the facts in his films are true, whether people like it or not. Sometimes the bias means he draws interesting conclusions FROM facts, that could have other interpretations he leaves out...but the facts for the most part can be true. I think many people can't discern the difference, hence they say everything he does is a biased lie...very dangerous whatever side of the fence you're on...regardless of what we personally believe..people should never stop paying attention to facts just because they don't jive with what they WANT to believe.

Not knowing the difference is what paralyzes us into doing nothing often times.

[DaHood]

Michael Moore has a bias that drives him to make films that make him money.
FTFY .

[markalot]

No, other people INFERRED that. My original point was that taking liberal arts type courses in college TEACH people to view things from different angles and THINK in different ways. Non liberal arts colleges/courses don't typically offer that.

The "overly sensitive" in the bunch here somehow read that as "hey...you didn't go to college..you're not smart!"

You appear to want to have a specific argument, so I'll leave you with what you originally said.

I don't mean you HAVE to have had courses like that...I've known some super smart people with little or no formal education...but that's the "norm". Some people are just smart and/or charismatic without "learning" how to be. But it's rare. The amount of people with only a high school education that go on to be Bill Gates or a great philosopher are few and far between.

I'm just saying for most people...we don't learn DIFFERENT ways to process info without a variety of classes, statistical, and liberal. In general, there is a VAST difference in how people that go to liberal arts schools think...you just need to know enough of them to see that..it's common sense. All of this is a broad generalization, so of course we all know someone that falls out of the "norm"...but that doesn't mean there isn't a "norm". There is. That's not a biased statement, that's just knowing how the world and human nature works.


What I read is that unless you've had liberal arts you can't correctly process differing points of view. It's an arrogant statement and one that, in my opinion, would only be made by a liberal.

The fact is the people who go on to be Bill Gates, college or no, are rare. To apply a certain brand of education to it doesn't make sense to me. You're response would probably be that since I didn't go to a liberal arts school or take liberal arts classes I couldn't possibly understand. How can I argue with that attitude?

What does SMART mean to you?

[the happy prole]

Well, you totally misinterpreted that post. And then you made a weird-ass attack on candy4140 for being a liberal which is totally irrelevant... so maybe you should see about getting some of those liberal arts classes. :p

Are you sure you understand what a liberal arts curriculum means? It means that instead of frou-frou specialty classes or professional training, you have to learn certain staples like English, Science, Math, Social Science, History, Writing, and Art.

I think science kinda shows that there are different types of learning and you can even see different parts of the brain being stimulated. So the more you develop all the different parts the better you pick things up in the future. And it looks like it probably helps you recover faster from strokes and maybe even prevent Alzheimer's.

You don't NEED to go to a liberal arts college or even college at all if you train your mind on your own. But in general, even the smartest people are made smarter by being forced to open up their minds a little bit and it takes a bit of a shove to do it. Now that I'm in the professional world, I spend eight hours a day working on fairly specialized tasks instead of learning math or reading philosophy.

And just so you know, no one has a bigger hard-on for a forced gen. ed. core curriculum than conservatives. What do you think SOL tests are about?

[markalot]

Don't connect liberal with liberal arts, connect the attitude with a liberal. A liberal arts school usually requires the student, if they want a job, to get more education. These school types usually attract or produce liberals. Not the liberal in liberal arts. I'm sure there are exceptions.

But the attitude that somehow this level of learning is connected to smart is pompous. What I read into it is a liberal basically explaining away why those without the training of 'how to think' are usually numbskull's who can't think.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe Candy is a conservative. Egg on my face then, but I still disagree with the idea that a few years of college or a degree can make someone into a smarter person. It all depends on how we define smart.

But in this case it wasn't just college, it was liberal arts, or a general education of training in (and I joke a little) things that won't get you a job.

[the happy prole]

The point is-- who gives a shit who is liberal? It's totally irrelevant and the fact that you bring it up constantly whenever anyone disagrees with you just highlights your own inability to read and analyze subject matter in an objective manner.

[DaHood]

Christ. Everybody seems to do it these days. Stamp a label, create a leper.

The dreaded "liberal"
The dreaded "neocon"
The dreaded "racist"

I guess it's just more fun to hate.

[frizgolf]

Christ. Everybody seems to do it these days. Stamp a label, create a leper.

The dreaded "smoker"

I guess it's just more fun to hate.


Sorry, just can't let that thread go... :p

[DaHood]

Sorry, just can't let that thread go... :p
:D .

[sparkie]

Don't connect liberal with liberal arts, connect the attitude with a liberal. A liberal arts school usually requires the student, if they want a job, to get more education. These school types usually attract or produce liberals. Not the liberal in liberal arts. I'm sure there are exceptions.

But the attitude that somehow this level of learning is connected to smart is pompous. What I read into it is a liberal basically explaining away why those without the training of 'how to think' are usually numbskull's who can't think.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe Candy is a conservative. Egg on my face then, but I still disagree with the idea that a few years of college or a degree can make someone into a smarter person. It all depends on how we define smart.

But in this case it wasn't just college, it was liberal arts, or a general education of training in (and I joke a little) things that won't get you a job.

I have a problem equating college with "a place to go so you can get a job". It seems to be the general view these days which explains the brain drain in american, where the school actively teaches you only the skills to land and do job "a". Any good liberal arts program will encourage students to diversify their existing knowledge and open their eyes to a world around them not for a job but to just become a better educated person. Maybe this is biased, but the original idea of college (further education as a whole) was to give people the skills to critically think and see other avenues not to just do a job.

[the happy prole]

That trend has somewhat reversed in the last 5-10 years. For one, people change careers so often they move end up in fields away from their major. For another, streamlining of corporations means you can't hire one guy to do X and another to do Y anymore. One guy has to do them both.

The one major technical skill most jobs require is computer skills. Other than that, employers want people who can write, research, analyze and learn. The trend is to get people who with good generic base skills, and teach them the specifics of the job on the job.

More and more colleges are beefing up their gen. ed requirements for undergrads while at the same time offering more professional training and certification-type courses-- sometimes even contracting out to specific businesses.

[sparkie]

right which is why they end up in corporate jobs despite most liberal arts majors dreams of being something else. it's very rare these days to actually work in your major after graduating (minus the dr's, jd's, teachers (which is changing), etc). Adaptability is the key thing that is pressed upon in education, along with finessed basic skills. Adaptability in a grander sense is about seeing, learning, and embracing change.

[markalot]

right which is why they end up in corporate jobs despite most liberal arts majors dreams of being something else. it's very rare these days to actually work in your major after graduating (minus the dr's, jd's, teachers (which is changing), etc). Adaptability is the key thing that is pressed upon in education, along with finessed basic skills. Adaptability in a grander sense is about seeing, learning, and embracing change.


So you're saying liberal arts is for people who embrace change? Liberals? And here I was convinced most liberal arts colleges produced conservatives. :rolleyes:

[sparkie]

So you're saying liberal arts is for people who embrace change? Liberals? And here I was convinced most liberal arts colleges produced conservatives. :rolleyes:

i enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing so sure why not, liberal arts is for people who embrace learning something different and new, widening their approach, and using their mind in different ways. i would be surprised if that meant that they're automatically liberals. that being said i really can't be faulted if conservatives tend not to think outside the realm of their existence.

the beauty of liberal arts is that it teaches you that your bullshit beliefs are not the only ones out there, which if there are enough synapses firing away you will eventually realize that maybe, just maybe your not always right and that you don't necessarily know everything.

[the happy prole]

I don't think a liberal arts MAJOR necessarily appeals to those who like change and challenge. A literature major might not enjoy math or vice versa.

A liberal arts EDUCATION in the classic sense probably appeals more to those with a wide variety of interests. And I don't think it's necessarily the challenge to beliefs, that benefit you either. I mean in some classes, yeah they go Socratic and you learn about different points of view. But I don't know that anyone has a "belief" about math.

However, if you can think mathematically, and you can read well and have logic, then those are all different styles of reasoning and different ways of learning and thinking and a broader base from which to build skills later on.

I still don't see what political inclination has to do with anything. We're talking about knowledge and general personality here, not society. By definition, conservatives favor less change in society (and I even think that's a poor definition). But I don't think that means that conservatives dislike change in general. A lot of them are successful business people who are quite dynamic. At the same time, a lot of business people probably didn't major in business. So they are taking advantage of having a broader skillset as well.

[Duemellon]

The NY Giants beat the Denver Broncos with rather conservative play calls on offense.That means Bill Parcells & his staff were Republicans.

I went to get some French Onion soup at Panera's the other day & they liberally applied cheese on top.This means the food chain supports a tax & spend government

I went to a beauty salon to get some new clippers & saw a bunch of wigsThis means they hold onto the sad dream of a 3-party governmental system

[markalot]

haha,

it tickles me how you all must believe that liberal art schools are full of young republicans taking art classes.

[Duemellon]

it tickles me how you all must believe that liberal art schools are full of young republicans taking art classes.It amazes me you think that because it has the word "liberal" in it, it's referring to a political inclination.

When you prepare chicken soup, do you liberally add salt or only do it the Republican way?

[markalot]

Too much salt's bad for you.

[candy4140]

I went to a beauty salon to get some new clippers & saw a bunch of wigsThis means they hold onto the sad dream of a 3-party governmental system

Oh my god...can't..stop..the laughter. Like that Family Guy where the founding fathers are sitting around writing the Bill of Rights with a pair of bear arms hangingn on the wall..."Every citizen has the right to bear arms...no one will ever be able to misinterpret that."

So off track on this thread...but to whomever asked what I think "smart" means...I know it when I talk to it. No, really..there's all kinds of smarts...and I know people that are wicked smart in areas of business, but totally clueless about human nature. Or vice versa.

If you were both, you'd be Jeffrey Sachs...and most people aren't, so to point out that the people writing conservapedia probably don't think in ways that allow them to see 10 sides of an issue isn't arrogant, it's just an obvious observation. No one said they aren't smart...but it does show something about their critical thinking skills when they perceive any description of homosexuality that doesn't include the words "sin" or "burn in hell" as "biased". Duh.

[the happy prole]

Just for you, markalot-- here are the top 10 Most Conservative Colleges according to Encarta:

1. Hillsdale College (Hillsdale, Michigan)
2. Grove City College (Grove City, Pennsylvania)
3. Brigham Young University (UT) (Provo, Utah)
4. Hampden-Sydney College (Hampden-Sydney, Virginia)
5. College of the Ozarks (Point Lookout, Missouri)
6. United States Naval Academy (Annapolis, Maryland)
7. Wheaton College (IL) (Wheaton, Illinois)
8. University of Dallas (Dallas, Texas)
9. Texas A&M University-College Station (College Station, Texas)
10. United States Merchant Marine Academy (Kings Point, New York)

That's five small liberal arts colleges (Hillsdale, Grove City, Hampden-Sydney, College of the Ozarks, Wheaton College), including the top 2 and 4 of the top 5.

It's not at all surprising. I'm sure that some of the most liberal campuses in the US are also liberal arts colleges. They have smaller populations, which make it harder to be diverse. And they tend to have specific missions-- often religious in nature-- that appeal primarily to a certain segment.

But if we're talking about a liberal arts CURRICULUM, I'm quite sure all ten of those institutions have them, as does pretty much every college and university in the US.

[purdueman_in]

So I had to look at the Conservapedia. What a lot of crap. Alas, I have a favourite cousin who resides in NJ and home schools. I would not be surprised if her family took part in this project.

I digress...I looked at the "Wikipedia bias" study performed by Conservapedia. I looked at their criticism of Wikipedia's Johnny Appleseed entry. They state:

Wikipedia's entry for Johnny Appleseed, a Christian folk hero, omits a discussion of his strong faith and instead features baseless speculation about his health, a year of death different from that of his obituary, and a silly story designed to make a Christian preacher look foolish.

Read the two entries, linked below, and decide which one probably has more useful information. Heck, just look at the references cited on each page.

Oh, I should mention I found if funny that one of the "most reliable online educational resources of its kind" stated that Puritans drank applejack because the water of the time was tainted or "unportable." Yep, that applejack is MUCH easier to transport than water...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Appleseed (http://)
http://www.conservapedia.com/Johnny_Appleseed (http://)

[Emperor Wog]

Does anybody suspect that Conservapedia is a satirical site made to poke fun at conservatives?

[BigSugar]

Does anybody suspect that Conservapedia is a satirical site made to poke fun at conservatives?

WOG!!

you did it didn't you? i'm guessing you and Joel got a little 420 one night and put the whole damn thing up! :) genius!

[slmpickens]

Just for you, markalot-- here are the top 10 Most Conservative Colleges according to Encarta....

how does bob jones not make the top ten??

[Emperor Wog]

WOG!!

you did it didn't you? i'm guessing you and Joel got a little 420 one night and put the whole damn thing up! :) genius!

Spoiled again... damn you, Sugar!

[BigSugar]

Spoiled again... damn you, Sugar!

you really should remove that "Knueven and Denu Design" from the "About Us" page. ;)

[Emperor Wog]

you really should remove that "Knueven and Denu Design" from the "About Us" page. ;)

Capital 'N'!

[Predot listener]

how does bob jones not make the top ten??

Or Liberty? Maybe its exclusion killed Jerry.

[BigSugar]

Capital 'N'!

CRAP! i haven't seen you in so long, i forgot!! KNueven and Denu, right? ;)

[the happy prole]

According to the article, it was based on a survey of students by Princeton Review. Bob Jones University probably wasn't accredited at the time, so they probably weren't included in the survey.

Liberty University is obviously conservative as all-get out from a religious standpoint, which means they are probably conservative politically as well. But depending on the questions I could see why they might not end up in the top 10. I don't know if they'd have huge opinions on fiscal policy and stuff like that. Everything is viewed in a religious context, making them kind of outside politics.

I've been to both Liberty and Hampden-Sydney. And I would agree that Hampden-Sydney fits better under the "politically conservative" rubrick than Liberty.

[sparkie]

how does bob jones not make the top ten??

my boss is a bob jones...

7. Wheaton College (IL) (Wheaton, Illinois)

I know several that went there they tend to scare the crap out of me but at least the students get to minor in faulty logic. ;)