Charlie Bell wrote: > On 18/01/2008, at 9:03 AM, David Hobby wrote: >> An interesting find! That's the first I've heard of the >> Conservapedia. It's sometimes hard to tell, but my sense is that >> it's not actually meant as humor? ... > Conservapedia is actually meant to be a serious "alternative" to > Wikipedia, with a "conservative" bias. In other words, if the truth > is inconvenient, ignore it and write your own.
Charlie-- It seems to aspire to being a complete source for everything. I clicked some of the math links, and went to parts of Conservapedia with short (correct) articles. For all I know, they produced them by cribbing from Wikipedia. It would be a great temptation to copy over virtually unchanged all the material that didn't "need" to have a conservative slant added to it. It does seem to be a matter of slant. Most of the facts are there someplace, the question is what is given prominence. One might compare: http://www.conservapedia.com/Armenia Where the second sentence is: > It has been an enclave of Christianity for over 1700 years and > suffered one of the first great holocausts against its people in > modern times. with: http://www.conservapedia.com/Chile Where the following is mentioned, BRIEFLY, at the end: > ...Pinochet, took over control of the country. The first years of the > regime in particular were marked by serious human rights violations. ---David _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
