= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Constant comments on Some Heuristics for Evaluating the Soundness of the Academic Mainstream in Unfamiliar Fields - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (272)
True, but this appears to be from a more free-wheeling, conservative-pundit blog-like section of the 'pedia, rather than from its articles. I think that once it's understood that this section is a highly opinionated blog, the particular assertion seems to fit comfortably. For instance, right now, one of the entries reads:
Socialist England! Not enough to say "England".
The "Socialist England" article is from the news section, and does not have an article on Conservapedia. It links to a Reuters article. It's also nowhere near as dire as the Conservapedia headline makes it out to be.
The relativity article, and the other main articles linked on the main page, are clearly standard articles and not intended to be viewed as simple opinion blogs. It has no attribution, and lists eighteen references in the exact same manner as a Wikipedia article.
At best it is misguided, at worst it is intended to intentionally misinform people about the theory.
At the end of the article counterexamples to evolution, an old earth, and the Bible are linked to, with exactly the same format (and worse mischaracterizations than the Relativity article).
Random articles of more innocuous subjects (like book) have exactly the same format.
Again, it's clearly the meat of the website, as more mundane articles do no more than go out of their way to add a mention of the Bible or Jesus in some way.