On 13 October 2010 15:19, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote: >> On 13 October 2010 14:45, Fred Bauder <fredb...@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>> Is there anything on this list: >>> http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia >>> which is a legitimate complaint that we can do something about? >> Every word. Then, when we've gone through that list, we can fix our >> articles on the physical sciences: >> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Conservapedian_relativity > Not fair... Entirely fair. They're gibbering lunatics whose every word subtracts from the sum of human knowledge. If Conservapedia says the sky is blue, look out the window. If docquintana on redstate says Conservapedia's opinion on anything whatsoever is good for *anything* other than horrified laughter, then he's approximately as worth listening to. Remember: Conservapedia considers *claiming the existence of black holes* is evidence of liberal bias. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Black_hole&diff=prev&oldid=719675 "There's a broader point here. Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? Certainly there is no practical justification to pushing black holes; no one will ever be helped by them in any way." - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
