You’re completely missing the point. What would we pit Demopedia for? Being what it says it is? OK, that may be a little funny, to the extent they express weak and silly views, but not very.
What are we pitting Conservapedia for? For claiming to be an alternative to a general encyclopedia and totally failing to be that because their bias causes them to be, by definition, the antithesis of what they claim to be. That’s funny.
There are a million and one right wing blogs out there. We are not pitting them for being what they are, because they are what they claim to be. We are pitting Conservapedia because it claims to be one thing but fails totally and laughably to be what it wants to be, for reasons that are obvious to anyone with a brain.
Well, you can complain about anything if you ignore reality and supply your own fiction about which to complain.
The motive for Demopedia was clearly a repository of political information from a left-leaning perspective. There is no entry for “evolution” (that makes its author look like a fool); there is no entry for “Creationism” (that lowers the IQ of anyone who reads it); there is no entry for “God” or any number of other subjects that Conservapedia tackles with reckless abandon and ignorance.
It is true that any number of entries on Demopedia could be challenged for their clear left-wing bias, but it sticks to topics that are relevant to political discussion and its self-evident bias does not result in posting horribly stupid entries regarding simple facts of science, geography, biography, or other topics.
You are not comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and wooden croquet balls–they have similar shapes, but have no similar material and they serve utterly different purposes.
Huh. I never got the impression this board was tolerant of left-wing wackiness. I myself have done all I can to crush pro-communist threads whenever they appear, and there was that hilarious dust-up with the militant vegan a few years back.
I wonder if there is room for a SockToThePills-wiki, or ShotToTheBallSackTube on the World Wide Web? Perhaps a daily “Guy Gets Football to Groin” email for 8.99 per month! I see big market potential here. Who else wants in on the ground floor?
Liberal bias or not Wikipedia has come through for Ford. I have been trying to figure out who the Tic-Tac hottie in the Canadian commercials is for a long time. Turns out it is Kate Kelton.
Conservative bias may pay off in the long term, but Liberal bias pays off right now
How fast would the continents have to be moving if Pangaea broke apart that recently for them to be in their current positions, and would be be able to see this movement?
Nothiong to see, really, just as the speed of light has changed, (entry not yet added to Conservapedia), continental drift (originally called continental sailing) has slowed down, considerably.
Wow. Conservapedia was pitted on the SDMB and Demopedia wasn’t. The oppression conservatives suffer truly is appalling, isn’t it? How they survive is beyond me. I mean, being pitted on a message board? That’s worse than a milllion holocausts.
Actually, it might be just as easy, maybe even just as correct, to say that this board doesn’t have a liberal bias and that it just happens to be a place where a diversity of opinions are expressed.
I sometimes think ‘Liberal Bias’ must be defined by some conservatives as ‘That state where opinions other than those of conservatives are permitted to be voiced’
Both Demopedia and Conservapedia were designed with specific audiences in mind. The point of both is to give their audience information (or misinformation) with the purpose of leaving out or ridiculing dissenting positions. I thought that was one of the reasons Conservapedia is being pitted and has garnered two two-page threads about it. So why not any criticism for Demopedia? I’ll admit that Conservapedia is the worse offender, but “if you ignore reality and supply your own fiction” you can ignore all the similarities between the two that are there.
