And the Truth Shall Set You Free


Apparently the truth has a liberal bias.

Don't get me wrong. I spent far too long as a Philosopher not to realize that Truth is a sticky issue. In fact, it can be almost impossible to determine what the truth of any matter is. But at the very least, most people who are engaged in the collection and dissemination of information strive towards presenting that information in a manner which most closely reflects the way the universe actually is, whatever that may be.

Despite all its problems, it seems that Wikipedia does a fairly decent job at this. While the information presented in Wikipedia may not be authoritative, there are enough people contributing who care about their subjects to ensure that the information, for the most part, correctly reflects the current scholarship in that field.

However, this is not good enough for some of our conservative friends who have found that Wikipedia presents a liberal bias. Therefore, in reaction to this, they have created their own counter-encyclopedia called Conservapedia. This is supposedly to take into account the fact that the majority of editors of Wikipedia describe themselves as liberal, while apparently conservatives outnumber liberals in America 2 to 1 (recent election results notwithstanding, I guess).

As an information professional, I find this far more worrisome than Wikipedia. At least with Wikipedia I have some assurance that the articles are going to attempt to reflect current scholarship. I also have some assurance that anything that is too far from current scholarship will be removed relatively quickly. After all, Wikipedia really is a free market of ideas. Anyone can contribute and edit, within a few basic constraints. What conservative couldn't like that idea?

These ones apparently. A few samples:

"Abortion: Abortion is the induced termination of a pregnancy.[1] The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." The article then goes on to discuss the link between abortion and breast cancer, premature birth, and other health risks. The section on legal history ends with the sentence "Conservatives immediately criticized [Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton] as examples of Judicial Activism." Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia article contains all the same information, but frames it in terms of the overall, ongoing debate.

"Pornography: This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation." (Sorry guys. Ignoring it won't make it go away.) By comparison, Wikipedia contains a factual and thorough article on what it is and the issues surrounding it.

"Evolution: The Theory of evolution is a materialist explanation of the history of life on earth." The article also conlcudes with a statement regarding the age of the Earth: "...young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age.[108][109][110] In addition, young earth creationist scientists have a number of arguments against the position of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.[111][112][113]"

You get the idea.

This situation completely underlines the problem that has developed in the supposed "liberal/conservative" divide. It really isn't about liberals and conservatives anymore, if it ever was. It has become a divide between those who try to capture the world the way it is and those who try to make the world the way they want it. True conservatives wouldn't try to do that. In fact, true conservatives as they have been prior to this point in our country have traditionally espoused the idea that we should all be free to pursue whatever actions make us happy, so long as those actions do not harm others, with a minimum of governmental interference.

The difference between liberals and conservatives should lie in that last statement: liberals believe that government should take action to help individuals pursue happiness, while conservatives believe that individuals should be left alone for the most part to pursue happiness in whatever way they choose. How on Earth did we get so far away from this core debate? And what does religion have to do with any of this?

Focus, people!

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think they should call it Bizzaro-pedia!!!

Oops, I just linked to Wiki. I guess I'm a liberal.
April 4, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Anonymous said…
oops: 1 z, 2 r's in Bizarro.
April 4, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Barackary Clintama

I've started to hold out some vague hope for the next presidential elections. At least, unlike the last time, it looks like I'll have enough choices to make voting in the Democratic primary worth my while. Last time I was so non-plussed with my choices for Democratic nominee that I voted in the Republican primary just so I could have the pleasure of voting against Dubya twice in the same year (which had the unfortunate side effect of putting me on the Republican mailing list. Although I've often entertained the idea of showing up at some of the party events I get invites to just to blow their minds). Don't get me wrong, I like John Kerry just fine. I just think it's an indication of how badly people wanted to get rid of Bush even in 2004 that Kerry did as well as he did. Speaking as a fellow tall, funny-looking egghead, he just wasn't electable. So at this point it looks like it will be Obama vs. Clinton for the Democratic nomination (although lord knows ...
Read more

Springing Backwards

Image
I hate daylight savings time. I really do. Maybe it's a silly thing to hate, but it has always seemed utterly pointless to me. And now the additional monkeying around we're doing with this already absurd device is making it even more pointless. IT departments all over the country are having to scramble to reprogram all the automatic clock settings on all the computers everywhere. At my own work, after the patches were applied we all had to go into our calendars and manually move all of the appointments from March 11th through April 8th one hour earlier, since the patch advanced all the times that were already in the system. This has got to be costing millions nationwide. And for what? Apparently the goal is to get a jump on the amount of time people are using lights and thereby save energy costs. Putting aside the fact that with a stroke of the pen congress could mandate 45 mpg minimums for vehicles and thereby save a heck of a lot more energy, how much are we really sav...
Read more