Liberals: Wikipedia not biased, Conservapedia a joke
Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum has started an alternative to Wikipedia called Conservapedia.
Needless to say, the usual "liberal" suspects are having a great deal of (what passes to them as) fun (link, link, link,link). They're pointing out "errors" in the encyclopedia, and some of those "errors" may actually be vandalism (link, link,link) and would be refered to at WP as such. Did you really expect anything different?
Of course, those of us with a greater mental age might wonder, "if unthinking 'liberals' say Wikipedia isn't biased, isn't that prima facie evidence that it is indeed biased?" And, we could compare that to the occasional ludicrous statement that the MSM does not have such a bias. And, we could point to entries at WP such as that on Antonio Villaraigosa, or the press-release-manquee for Media Matters. Or, something else I just noticed: Art Torres' 187 quote was added to his entry in April 2006, removed in May, and then not added back in until August. Meaning that all during the Summer of 2006, a very "liberal" POV of Torres was being presented to all those who visited the entry, which turns up at the #1 spot in a Google search for his name.
Nope, no bias in Wikipedia, which is "normal" and "unbiased" in the same sense that the New York Times is "normal" and "unbiased".
I note also that WP publishes an /Interwiki_map, which lets you create links to other wikis. Instead of entering the full, external URL, you use something like [[Disinfopedia:Wikipedia]], which would link to the Wikipedia entry at sourcewatch.org. Unlike almost all other external links, such links don't have the nofollow tag added, which is certainly of benefit to many sites. There are interwiki links for commercial sites such as IMDB, and one was briefly added for Youtube (it was deleted over concerns of linking to copyrighted material). You can suggest adding an interwiki link on its talk page, and no one has so far offered for Conservapedia. I wonder what would happen if someone did?
The bottom line is that the "liberal" response to Conservapedia is similar to their response to Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, and Fox News, and their push to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. They aren't content with having their biases presented in almost all of the wider media, they simply want it all.
VERY SPECIAL UPDATE: Certainly, not all the bias at WP is "liberal". In the
06:13, 26 January 2005 revision of the Asa_Hutchinson article (a Republican and a former DHS Undersecretary), I added four negative links, none of them to any of my sites and all relating to illegal immigration:
"Rounding up all illegals 'not realistic'"
"Hutchinson’s Remarks Indicate Cheap Labor Bias of Administration"
Cheers, jeers at immigration town hall meeting
"(Hutchinson) slammed for stopping illegals sweeps"
Those links were deleted 10 weeks later; in August I added them back in twice before giving up. In its current state, no one would know anything about his involvement in the Temecula sweeps, which is about the only thing (other than running for Arkansas governor) he's known for in the past few years.
DON'T MESS WITH MINILIB UPDATE: My Digg post was buried; searching for it by name didn't bring it up until I checked the 'show buried stories' checkbox. I don't know exactly how that works, but if you go here and vote for it it might become un-'liberaled'.