Examples of Bias in Examples of Bias in Conservapedia
The article "Examples of Bias in Conservapedia" has been academically analysed[1] and formally proven[2] to be riddled with bias purposefully injected by its writer in nearly every conceivable form, including anti-Conservapedia bias, anti-American bias, both anti- and pro-Christian bias, anti-Wikipedia bias, anti-Uncyclopedia bias, and anti-bias bias.
Examples of bias by type[edit | edit source]
Anti-Conservapedia Bias[edit | edit source]
The article states that Conservapedia only has one accurate page; this is not true because there are at least two academically verifiably correct pages: Conservapedia's articles on Theory of Relativity and Political Correctness are two obvious examples but pretty much any page should do. The only reason the writer of this article could make such an offhand claim is a clear example of their preconceived bias.
Anti-Idiot Bias[edit | edit source]
Conservapedia is a very important website for idiots to learn about the world with their specific worldview taken into account; presumably, a self-proclaimed scientist (or someone equally full of themselves) probably thought it'd be a good look to write this and let the world know "hey guys, look at me! i am very smart because Citation and Paper!!"
Disappointing.
Pro-Psychedelic Bias[edit | edit source]
If we do want to take as fact the writer's so-called "intellectual prowess", I could go and verify their found information for myself by clicking on some of the links to the "new conservapedia" in this article. But surprise surprise, when I do that, all I find is a fucking error message!
I would normally assume this is a prank, but given the fact that we took the writer's intellectualistic tendencies as fact earlier, it logically concludes that this person must have been hallucinating on mushrooms while reading the primary sources. I checked this for myself by getting high on some mushrooms and I saw the error message transform into a proper web page, although it was much different than described in the original article. How's that for research, dumbass??
Look, I love a good mushroom-fueled rant as much as the next guy, but this is just inappropriate.
Anti-Uncyclopedia Bias[edit | edit source]
For some reason, this article inexplicably does not start off with a leading question or other writing element wherein Uncyclopedia is explicity or implicity laid out as the framework from which truth is derived. Such a missing element to a case study such as this is nothing more than a reprehensible insult to everything Uncyclopedia stands for.
Anti-Christian Bias[edit | edit source]
The idea that the Bible being referenced as a source is somehow a bad thing is implicitly stated in the article. This is blatantly a manipulation of the human form to express an idea only able to be told by the devil himself, and the writer is therefore likely only a vessel of the devil himself; i'll give them the benefit of the doubt though and just assume he's a huge dumbass.
Pro-Christian Bias[edit | edit source]
The idea of the Bible being referenced as a source is brought up in the article for some reason; a clear disrespect for the reader's brain cells and a complete waste of time to mention on an encyclopedia as truth-based as Uncyclopedia. It goes without mentioning that religious texts are irrelevant when the topic of discussion has to do with the nature of veracity, and is evident of the author's attempt to influence the reader into having it take up space in their mind rent-free, if only for a moment.
Anti-American Bias[edit | edit source]
The phrase "intelligent, sensible person" is put in strikethrough text when it is being used to describe Americans; this is a complete logical anomaly as the Declaration of Independence clearly states "All 'Muricans are hereby given the inalienable titles of intelligence and sensibility, because FUCK YOU England!! yall r a bunch of crumpet suckers!!!"
George Washington did not die for this.
Anti-Wikipedia Bias[edit | edit source]
Conservapedia is effectively the rival to Wikipedia, the nonsensical website mocking Uncyclopedia's truth-based articles. The author seems to have made a huge mistake when they mentioned Conservapedia being like Wikipedia with a different satirical slant. This would suggest that Conservapedia is based only on attacking Wikipedia, ignoring the reality that it's a mockery of a mockery of Uncyclopedia. This manner of thinking could only have been written if the writer had some sort of preconceived intent of being aligned against Wikipedia, which is obviously the case here.
Anti-Bias Bias[edit | edit source]
The article implicitly carries the suggestion that bias is something to be avoided when writing an article guided by principles of truth-seeking; the reason for this is not claimed whatsoever and is taken as an inexplicable axiom. This bias against bias is a biased form of biasing, biasing bias against unbiased writing; an obviously biased bias biasing the bias with which the biases of this article are biased from, resulting in the biased article's biases.