4 ms·

> there was a pseudo version for people who strictly believe in creationism http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

• rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Nicholas_C was a minute late so I'll respond to yours. Good timing! With that example in mind, imagine there being no trusted force for everyone, because every other source could be dismissed as "Conservative brain-washing" or "Anarchist propaganda." We barely trust our governments and our bosses' bosses. Not all of us live where we can trust our news. I know a lot of us on HN are business- and libertarian-minded, but we should recognize that places on the web like Wikipedia are special, and for all of us.
  • sago 11y ago
    Isn't this the premise of Conservapedia. It doesn't claim to be biased, but to be free of the hegemonic liberal bias of Wikipedia (and academia, business, most forms of religion, etc). There is no trusted source for everyone. Anyone with a bias they can't get into Wikipedia is free to spread FUD on the egregious nature of its biases and misinformation.
• weaksauce 11y ago
  Interesting... It's like the Fox News of Wikipedia. People are going to get information from sources that semi align with their worldview. I really like Wikipedia because it's neutral in tone for the most part.
  • justizin 11y ago
    > I really like Wikipedia because it's neutral in tone for the most part. Assuming that the conventional perspective of white straight males with an interest in sci-fi is neutral. ;)