QUOTE(Rootology @ Thu 21st August 2008, 11:19am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
QUOTE(Crestatus @ Thu 21st August 2008, 7:59am)
![*](style_images/brack/post_snapback.gif)
But with so many newspapers obviously liberal-biased, that's not bad at all.
Just goes to show what the majority of Americans are.
![smile.gif](http://wikipediareview.com/smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Smart-aleckness aside, Conservapedia has a tiny, tiny number of editors compared to WP. WP has tens of thousands active any given week, most of which are likely American. If the site skews liberal thus, and conservative editors historically have gotten pantsed on true NPOV issues (Team America, Noroton, I'm sure there are more I'm not remembering) it's just a reflection of the body politic of Wikipedia and the vocal bits of society alone. Are there maybe more conservatives? Maybe--maybe if all the people for whom internet means "Google, myspace, youtube" took part in WP, it would be wildly conservative.
Who knows--but the silent majority isn't entitled to power or authority, if it even exists. Speak up, or enjoy losing battlegrounds, is what it comes down to.
It is far more complicated than this. A lot of it is issue intensive, with conservatives well represented on issues that are important to them. Neocons get trashed, but their politics tends to strongly fail at RS on issues where "random political nattering diametrically opposed to measured data" fails RS.
Additionally, Wikipedia favors knowledgeable, nerdy people (at the least, for content writing). These tend towards "liberal" positions on the grounds that they are generally true. During the buildup to the Iraq war (the current one), a lot of stuff reflected very "American NeoConservative" positions on related articles, even though anyone with access to non-American news knew perfectly well that American News Networks were just repeating obvious packs of lies.
Complicated, complicated. Schafly started Conservapedia because [[Abortion]] only referenced one of the seventeen studies that suggested a link between Breast Cancer and abortion. It actually now devotes four paragraphs to the issue, but unfortunately is stuck with the fact that there is probably no link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortionhttp://www.conservapedia.com/AbortionCompare, and it is pretty clear that the Conservapedia article is completely untenable. Conservapedia's History of Abortion section covers Abortion in the United States in 1973. Wikipedia's is actually quarterway decent.
Additionally, compared to English speakers, Americans are pretty clearly underrepresented to Brits, Canucks, Aussies and the like. Second language speakers and whatnot added, I would be surprised if more than half of editors are Americans. It might be an interesting exercise to try and determine the nationality of admins, though.