Illogicopedia vs Conservapedia deathmatch! Options

[TungstenCarbide]

thanks for this, Selina. Conservapedia is actually funnier than Encyclopedia Dramatical or illogicopedia, because it's not intended to be.

Here's our very own Michaeldsuarez furiously pumping away.

you just cant make this shit up.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Religious_Upb...f_Homosexuality

Ed_Poor is an administrator, checkuser and oversighter.

They're not very welcoming.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sun 5th February 2012, 10:59am

[Fusion]

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?

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_Relativity

How many one-sided POV articles on Wikipedia have links to rebuttal articles?

[iii]

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.

That article links to

http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Rebuttal_to...s_to_Relativity

How 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]

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.

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.

[iii]

I won't go here into the errors on WP about Relativity.

Please do. I await your masterful critique.

[Fusion]

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?

[Mister Die]

Any article on Conservapedia that winds up looking better than its WP counterpart is in such a state because the resident fundies don't care (at least for the time-being) to degrade it with pseudoscience or what have you. Conservapedia, like Wikipedia, gives you the power to write the greatest article on the Theory of Evolution that ever existed, only unlike Wikipedia fundies won't even pretend to look objective or respect mainstream scientific consensus, whereas the worst that could happen to such an article on Wikipedia is that it'd gradually decline in quality until it's back to mediocrity or worse.

Better to have an article that is unintelligible (worst thing that could happen to Wikipedia's article) than an article which starts off with something like "Evolution is a theory that was created by the atheist Charles Darwin in the 19th century to 'explain' why black people are dumber than white people. Darwin hated God. Lenin, Hitler and Mao liked Darwin."

Also it is possible to have bias when both sides are presenting their case. In fact that's kinda built into the whole concept because such articles are by their very nature meant to respond to attacks by other articles. Unless it's "here's an article that tries to look like an encyclopedic counterpart and here's one that doesn't," then you're just going to get opinion pieces.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Sun 5th February 2012, 10:38pm

[iii]

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?

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]

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_Relativity

How 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....

[Michaeldsuarez]

Here's our very own Michaeldsuarez furiously pumping away.

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=S...AMichaeldsuarez

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=S...AMichaeldsuarez

I went from being a blocked user to being an user entrusted with skipcaptcha and rollback rights.

[Fusion]

my darling.

Come off it. Even Mr Horse doesn't call people "my darling".

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/0716703440

and compare it with the WP article.

[iii]

OK. Start with this book, which is a classic introduction to the subject

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Physic...r/dp/0716703440

and compare it with the WP article.

I don't see any problems. Care to point one out?

[Fusion]

I don't see any problems.

So you are out of your depth already?

[Warui desu]

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]

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: Wed 8th February 2012, 12:15am

[Abd]

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

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]

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.

"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]

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]

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

OK. Start with this book, which is a classic introduction to the subject

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gravitation-Physic...r/dp/0716703440

and 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]

"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.