|
|
|
Illogicopedia vs Conservapedia deathmatch! |
|
|
Selina |
|
Cat herder
Group: Staffy
Posts: 1,513
Joined:
Member No.: 1
|
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 1st February 2012, 4:48am) Whenever I hear the name "Schlafly" I go (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif) Unfortunately I don't have any hair left to tear out.... So I try not to think about them.... I shall be bald with you shortly, Eric! http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=M...ev&oldid=953187I find it ironic that Conservapedia quotes Barry Goldwater, who was certainly not a "conservative" by Conservapedia/Andy Schlafly standards. He was for separation of church and state, as well as allowing women to have abortions. Barry Goldwater and Andy Schlafly would not get along on most things except maybe nuking communists. http://conservapedia.com/The_SouthSweet Dr. Frankenstein of Rogers and Hammerstein! Since when has Oklahoma ever been part of The South!?! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) Edit: http://conservapedia.com/John_Maynard_KeynesQUOTE John Maynard Keynes (5 June 1883 - 21 April 1946) was an incompetent liberal British economist, pedophile and one of the most persuasive frauds of the 20th century. [1] In 2010, his native land of Britain (which is deeply in debt) repudiated his economic folly of government deficit spending through the implementation of an austerity budget during a period of economic difficulty.[2][3] Although government certainly is necessary, the more efficient private sector is better at creating economically productive jobs and other economic activity such as investing.
...
It is ironic that liberals such as Barack Obama advocate Keynesian economic concepts since they are violating one of John Maynard Keynes' key principles. Keynes advocated having governments run budget surpluses during good economic times.[5] In addition, Keynes advocated that governments should increase government spending during difficult times and even engage in deficit spending. Keynes was against large structural deficits as he believed they are a drag on the economy.[6] Liberals such as Barack Obama advocate massive U.S. government spending during a period when the federal government already has a massive amount of existing debt. Furthermore, Obama's colossal government spending was inefficient and did not pull the American economy out of its economic problems, but merely buried the U.S. economy under more debt.
And it goes on. What a load of... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE John Maynard Keynes (5 June 1883 - 21 April 1946) was an incompetent liberal British economist, pedophile
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) Quick someone! Move this thread to the Whine Cellar! We must have Ottava's views immediately! Is Ottava blocked on Conservapedia?
|
|
|
|
radek |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Wed 1st February 2012, 11:48pm) QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 1st February 2012, 4:48am) Whenever I hear the name "Schlafly" I go (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif) Unfortunately I don't have any hair left to tear out.... So I try not to think about them.... I shall be bald with you shortly, Eric! http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=M...ev&oldid=953187I find it ironic that Conservapedia quotes Barry Goldwater, who was certainly not a "conservative" by Conservapedia/Andy Schlafly standards. He was for separation of church and state, as well as allowing women to have abortions. Barry Goldwater and Andy Schlafly would not get along on most things except maybe nuking communists. http://conservapedia.com/The_SouthSweet Dr. Frankenstein of Rogers and Hammerstein! Since when has Oklahoma ever been part of The South!?! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) Edit: http://conservapedia.com/John_Maynard_KeynesQUOTE John Maynard Keynes (5 June 1883 - 21 April 1946) was an incompetent liberal British economist, pedophile and one of the most persuasive frauds of the 20th century. [1] In 2010, his native land of Britain (which is deeply in debt) repudiated his economic folly of government deficit spending through the implementation of an austerity budget during a period of economic difficulty.[2][3] Although government certainly is necessary, the more efficient private sector is better at creating economically productive jobs and other economic activity such as investing.
...
It is ironic that liberals such as Barack Obama advocate Keynesian economic concepts since they are violating one of John Maynard Keynes' key principles. Keynes advocated having governments run budget surpluses during good economic times.[5] In addition, Keynes advocated that governments should increase government spending during difficult times and even engage in deficit spending. Keynes was against large structural deficits as he believed they are a drag on the economy.[6] Liberals such as Barack Obama advocate massive U.S. government spending during a period when the federal government already has a massive amount of existing debt. Furthermore, Obama's colossal government spending was inefficient and did not pull the American economy out of its economic problems, but merely buried the U.S. economy under more debt.
And it goes on. What a load of... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) Check the history. That article was actually half way decent before that Conservative fellar got hold of it. I remember looking up an article on Conservapedia related to Race and Intelligent once an finding that it had less racist crap in it than the corresponding Wikipedia article (I don't remember the details). Same for immigration. Who knows what happened to these in the mean time. I dunno, what is the active editor population of that site?
|
|
|
|
Mister Die |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 88
Joined:
Member No.: 75,644
|
Some articles they have are laughably short and good examples of what Wikipedia calls "coatrack" articles. QUOTE Enver Hoxha was the Stalinist dictator of Albania from 1944 to his death in 1985.
In 1967, he banned all religions from Albania.
See also
Chicago Area Friends of Albania No date of birth, no date of death, no biographical information outside of "he led Albania and was a 'Stalinist' atheist" and apparently the Chicago Area Friends of Albania is relevant to Hoxha's life and work, rather than being a small mid-80's organization that a certain left-wing individual (and one-time Wikipedian) participated in for a while. Their article on Albania itself is mostly copied from elsewhere. QUOTE(radek) I remember looking up an article on Conservapedia related to Race and Intelligent once an finding that it had less racist crap in it than the corresponding Wikipedia article (I don't remember the details). Same for immigration. Who knows what happened to these in the mean time. I dunno, what is the active editor population of that site? I think the main problem is that Conservapedia is much like Wikipedia in that you'll get someone who actually knows a lot about a subject (only in Conservapedia's case it tends to come from banned Wikipedians continuing their work on Conservapedia in protest) who decide to edit articles so that they are actually pretty good and not hatchet jobs, but then the mass of fundamentalist Christians who want everything to be as skewed towards one single point of view as is possible emerge, so instead of (using a hypothetical example) "Andy Dick is a comedian" you'd get "Andy Dick is a depraved bisexual atheistic pedophile and liberal whose comedy routine is terrible. Dick is, according to World Net Daily, a profoundly anti-American person who, like all atheists, liberals, and everyone not heterosexual, has had run-ins with depression and the law." Said decent editors then either retire from the project or engage in arduous work to make the article not-insane, which tends to result in them being banned for "liberal bias." Replace "fundamentalist Christians" with "an unending stream of people who don't know enough about a subject to significantly contribute to an article but do anyway" and you have Wikipedia. Here's an example of an article that's obviously intended to be dead on arrival in-re not being a hatchet job: http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity196 citations. The Wikipedia article on Joseph Stalin has 311. An article basically saying "ATHEISTS ARE FAT LOL!!!" has 63% of the amount of citations of the Stalin article. The Stalin article on Conservapedia itself has 10 citations, so an article equating obesity and atheism has 1960% more citations. This post has been edited by Mister Die:
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Sun 5th February 2012, 3:17am) QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 4th February 2012, 9:56pm) There are many articles on Conservapedia already that have no obvious ideology bias. For example there are articles on mathematics. While as the Nazis proved you could slant even those (they stopped people studying the work of "degenerate" mathematicians) I see no evidence of such there.
What name do you edit under there? Do you think my eyes are green? QUOTE(iii @ Sun 5th February 2012, 4:08am) QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 4th February 2012, 4:56pm) For example there are articles on mathematics. While as the Nazis proved you could slant even those (they stopped people studying the work of "degenerate" mathematicians) I see no evidence of such there.
O RLY?The link is to Counterexamples_to_Relativity. I could be pedantic and argue that such is physics and not mathematics. However, there is a better argument. That article links to http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Rebuttal_to...s_to_RelativityHow many one-sided POV articles on Wikipedia have links to rebuttal articles?
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 5th February 2012, 11:26am) I could be pedantic and argue that such is physics and not mathematics. However, there is a better argument.
I could say that you're making a nitpicking distinction out of a pressing need to have your statement that mathematics isn't being attacked by Conservapedia be confirmed. However, there is a better argument. QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 5th February 2012, 11:26am) That article links to http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Rebuttal_to...s_to_RelativityHow many one-sided POV articles on Wikipedia have links to rebuttal articles? The issue is not one of comparing the two websites to each other. The issue is of your own framing: ideology really does seep into all areas of Conservapedia's coverage including technical articles which are completely unrelated to politics. The "rebuttal essay" is a laughable ploy that is only allowed to exist because it was Roger Schlafly who took his brother to task and apparently Andy doesn't seem to possess the cojones de latón to eject his own brother from the playground. If you really think having point-counterpoint reference articles/essays is a favorable attribute, maybe you could show us an example of this technique's effective employ in a respectable encyclopedia? An encyclopedia is not supposed to be a debate showcase, last I checked.
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(iii @ Sun 5th February 2012, 5:22pm) I could say that you're making a nitpicking distinction out of a pressing need to have your statement that mathematics isn't being attacked by Conservapedia be confirmed.
I was talking about mathematics, not physics. If you know no difference, it may be unwise to make solemn pronouncements thereon. QUOTE If you really think having point-counterpoint reference articles/essays is a favorable attribute, maybe you could show us an example of this technique's effective employ in a respectable encyclopedia? An encyclopedia is not supposed to be a debate showcase, last I checked.
This is just trolling, no? My point is that there is less bias on Conservapedia, even on your chosen illustration of bias there, than on WP, because both sides have the opportunity to put their case. Where, anywhere on WP, does that happen? Would not HK rejoice to have a free hand to write "Defence of LaRouche"? Of course that is not a way to write a proper encyclopedia, bu tnobody said that Conservapedia was such any more than WP is. I won't go here into the errors on WP about Relativity.
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(iii @ Sun 5th February 2012, 10:18pm) QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 5th February 2012, 5:00pm) I won't go here into the errors on WP about Relativity.
Please do. I await your masterful critique. But you would not understand it. Have you studied much tensor calculus?
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 5th February 2012, 5:24pm) QUOTE(iii @ Sun 5th February 2012, 10:18pm) QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 5th February 2012, 5:00pm) I won't go here into the errors on WP about Relativity.
Please do. I await your masterful critique. But you would not understand it. Have you studied much tensor calculus? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) The anonymity of the internet cuts both ways, my darling. What an interesting thing that you assume to know what I do or do not know on the basis of your complete lack of knowledge of who I am or what I have "studied". Put up or shut up. Don't worry about what I do or do not know, and I won't worry about what you do or do not know. If it's over my head, then it will be obvious soon enough. Thumbing your nose just makes you look like a clown.
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 5th February 2012, 11:26am) The link is to Counterexamples_to_Relativity. I could be pedantic and argue that such is physics and not mathematics. However, there is a better argument. That article links to http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Rebuttal_to...s_to_RelativityHow many one-sided POV articles on Wikipedia have links to rebuttal articles? A stopped clock is right twice a day. The Conservapedia articles on Relativity are truly embarrassing, I'm sure, for scientists who happen to be politically conservative.... And lots of the rest is just plain embarrassing. Ed Poor, eh? As a result of this mention, and seeing what Ed Poor had written about himself on his Conservapedia user page, I looked him up on Wikipedia. Interesting. Gad, ArbComm, in the decision that desysopped him, sounded worse than the later crap. Juvenile. Of course, I didn't read the evidence, just the case page, which started with A=B and somehow got from there to X=Y. The findings of fact weren't fact, they were moral judgments, generalizations. It looks like Ed's worst offense was being frank and open. But perhaps that's a shallow conclusion from a shallow investigation....
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(iii @ Sun 5th February 2012, 10:36pm) my darling.
Come off it. Even Mr Horse doesn't call people "my darling". QUOTE Don't worry about what I do or do not know, and I won't worry about what you do or do not know. If it's over my head, then it will be obvious soon enough. Thumbing your nose just makes you look like a clown.
OK. Start with this book, which is a classic introduction to the subject http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Physic...r/dp/0716703440and compare it with the WP article.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 7th February 2012, 10:16am) OK. Start with this book, which is a classic introduction to the subject http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Physic...r/dp/0716703440and compare it with the WP article. I don't see any problems. Care to point one out?
|
|
|
|
Warui desu |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 35
Joined:
Member No.: 10,651
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 4th February 2012, 11:56pm) There are many articles on Conservapedia already that have no obvious ideology bias. For example there are articles on mathematics. While as the Nazis proved you could slant even those (they stopped people studying the work of "degenerate" mathematicians) I see no evidence of such there.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Set"Another striking example is the how traditional marriage provides a greater set than otherwise: the union of A = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and B = \{a, b, c, e\}\, is merely \{a, b, c, d, e\}\,, while the union of a man, M = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and a woman W = \{e, f, g, h\}\,, is \{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h\}\,, which is a broader and more diverse set. Define "A" as the set of all false assertions, and "B" as the set of all the Bible passages. Since there are no Counterexamples to the Bible, the intersection between set A and set B is the empty set. "
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Tue 7th February 2012, 4:53pm) QUOTE(iii @ Tue 7th February 2012, 3:45pm) I don't see any problems.
So you are out of your depth already? *Ahem*. You are the one claiming that there is something in Wikipedia's coverage of relativity that is at variance with Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, not I. Go ahead and write down explicitly what it is. This post has been edited by iii:
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Warui desu @ Tue 7th February 2012, 5:59pm) QUOTE(Fusion @ Sat 4th February 2012, 11:56pm) There are many articles on Conservapedia already that have no obvious ideology bias. For example there are articles on mathematics. While as the Nazis proved you could slant even those (they stopped people studying the work of "degenerate" mathematicians) I see no evidence of such there. http://www.conservapedia.com/Set"Another striking example is the how traditional marriage provides a greater set than otherwise: the union of A = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and B = \{a, b, c, e\}\, is merely \{a, b, c, d, e\}\,, while the union of a man, M = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and a woman W = \{e, f, g, h\}\,, is \{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h\}\,, which is a broader and more diverse set. Define "A" as the set of all false assertions, and "B" as the set of all the Bible passages. Since there are no Counterexamples to the Bible, the intersection between set A and set B is the empty set. " O.M.G. I'd have thought that this stuff was inserted by trolls mocking Conservapedia, but ... see this self-reverted change.. Ashafly appears to be God on Conservapedia. Then Aschafly added the section about traditional marriage. The passage that the editor thought to remove, then realized his Grievous Error, was QUOTE There is the set of unborn children who were [[abortion|aborted]], about which striking conclusions can be drawn. Given the large and diverse number of elements of this set, it would likely include many who could surpass existing athletic and intellectual achievements. Indeed, many of the world records and [[Nobel Prize]] achievements recognized today would have been outdone by members of this set. These are really funny. Remember, this is a math article. Apparently anything will serve as a coatrack for Schafly. My condolences to my conservative friends. Here's a nice example of Schafly's work. I see that PhilipN added citation needed tags. Schafly reverted. This is being discussed on the attached Talk page. Fascinating. If those are mostly conservatives, then there are some sane ones. Or maybe they are trolls, just pretending, or they will soon be only found in history there. Or not even there, Schafly is also an oversighter. Scary. This is not an allegation of abuse. Haven't seen any yet, just silly stupidity. I saw some indications that Schafly permits criticism, and has protected critics, there are probably users here with much more understanding of the history there. And in the other direction, the Conservapedia article on Wicca seemed decent, if a bit informal. The Conservapedia article explains what a "fluffy bunny" is, something entirely missing from the Wikipedia article. WP does have an article, Fluffy bunny but it seems somehow more hostile, dark, whereas the Conservapedia article simply presents "fluffy bunnies" as enthusiastic newcomers. Perhaps we should start calling naive Wikipedians "fluffy bunnies." Cute little things, eh?
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(iii @ Wed 8th February 2012, 12:14am) You are the one claiming that there is something in Wikipedia's coverage of relativity that is at variance with Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, not I. Go ahead and write down explicitly what it is.
On the contrary. You are the one who claims that Wikipedia is reliable. Now please stop trolling. QUOTE(Warui desu @ Tue 7th February 2012, 10:59pm) "Another striking example is the how traditional marriage provides a greater set than otherwise: the union of A = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and B = \{a, b, c, e\}\, is merely \{a, b, c, d, e\}\,, while the union of a man, M = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and a woman W = \{e, f, g, h\}\,, is \{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h\}\,, which is a broader and more diverse set.
Define "A" as the set of all false assertions, and "B" as the set of all the Bible passages. Since there are no Counterexamples to the Bible, the intersection between set A and set B is the empty set. "
This is not biased mathematics. It is the insertion of theology into a mathematics article. The mathematics is correct.
|
|
|
|
iii |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 114
Joined:
Member No.: 38,992
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Wed 8th February 2012, 7:26am) QUOTE(iii @ Wed 8th February 2012, 12:14am) You are the one claiming that there is something in Wikipedia's coverage of relativity that is at variance with Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, not I. Go ahead and write down explicitly what it is.
On the contrary. You are the one who claims that Wikipedia is reliable. Now please stop trolling. Now, now, I certainly did not contend that Wikipedia is "reliable" as a general rule, but I did take issue with your implied contention that there was something wrong with Wikipedia's coverage of relativity. When I asked what it was, you told me that it would be obvious to those who read Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. When I asked for a specific example, you came up empty. If you ever want to demonstrate that you actually have evidence, feel free to provide it.
|
|
|
|
Fusion |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined:
Member No.: 71,526
|
QUOTE(iii @ Wed 8th February 2012, 2:34pm) When I asked what it was, you told me that it would be obvious to those who read Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.
Wrong. What I actually said was QUOTE OK. Start with this book, which is a classic introduction to the subject http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Physic...r/dp/0716703440and compare it with the WP article. It always helps to read an examination question before you answer it. Still, maybe I should give you something a little shorter to read: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Fusion @ Wed 8th February 2012, 7:26am) QUOTE(Warui desu @ Tue 7th February 2012, 10:59pm) "Another striking example is the how traditional marriage provides a greater set than otherwise: the union of A = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and B = \{a, b, c, e\}\, is merely \{a, b, c, d, e\}\,, while the union of a man, M = \{a, b, c, d\}\, and a woman W = \{e, f, g, h\}\,, is \{a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h\}\,, which is a broader and more diverse set.
Define "A" as the set of all false assertions, and "B" as the set of all the Bible passages. Since there are no Counterexamples to the Bible, the intersection between set A and set B is the empty set. " This is not biased mathematics. It is the insertion of theology into a mathematics article. The mathematics is correct. Math is not just the formulas, it includes the application of formulas to specific problems. If men and women were reducible to those sets, yes, I think, the math is correct. But they are not so reducible, and in particular, in this case, because men and women are far more simliar than the sets imply. The genetic diversity between the set of genes of a man and those of a woman can be less than the genetic diversity between the set of genes for two women, for example. It depends on how closely related the men and women are. Complex issue, actually. Men could be considered genetically deficient, in a way, having only one copy of certain genes and therefore being susceptible to certain genetic diseases that much more rarely affect women, if they affect women at all. Or you could consider met to have greater potential because they have genes that women don't have at all. Or we could note that men and women are far more alike each other than they are different; that's why we are the same species, most of the genes are interchangeable. One point I don't think they'd like to see: sexual preference *must* be determined, at least in part, by genetics, or else heterosexuality would not be "natural." If one preference is determined genetically, as least as to disposition, then genetic variation would surely provide alternatives, that's how genetic variation works, it tests the environment constantly. It seems that some conservatives want this both ways: they want to assert that homosexuality is "unnatural," but then to deny that there is any genetic disposition, so that they can make it a moral issue, a matter of mere choice, culpable and blameworthy. I'm not pushing either view, by the way, and probably the real situation is some of this and some of that. There is natural disposition (genetic), learned behavior (social or environmental or "cultural"), and some level of choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |