On 3/7/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually they don't seem to define what their counterpart to NPOV is. For example, is it ok to have an article which states all the horrible things that communists have done, and none of the horrible things Americans have done? In any normal, even "conservative" encyclopaedia, this would still be a glaring omission. If you don't define some kind of bounds or some central position, the whole thing just becomes propaganda or worse.
Seriously people, it's called Conservapedia! What do you expect, a balanced and neutral look at the world? I mean, any time you name something after a political movement, it's going to be biased. I'm not going to be that trusting of the sushi-eating-cappucino-drinking-homosexual-academic-liberal-hollywood-elite-pedia either, at least not on stuff like religious topics (even though that particular tomb would describe me as a person fairly well ;).
There's a difference between "We're a quality encyclopedia written from a political and/or social conservative point of view" and what Conservapedia is functionally right now.
It would be interesting to see focused POV encyclopedia projects spring up to offer alternatives to the WP NPOV and what WP systemic biases do exist (I believe that there's a tendency for both political and social liberalism among WP editors; I don't believe that it generally has a negative effect on article NPOV, but it is a mild systemic bias).
This Conservapedia project is not showing the types of rigor and scaling that will be required for it to rise to the challenge, however.
Maybe it will later, but it's not looking hopeful.