Apparently you don't know much about conservativism. The fact that you're writing them a letter of disagreement will be sufficient reason for them to conclude that you're not one of their own, no matter what you say.
Does this mean you are adverse to me trying?
That's what happened to conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, after all. He's been all but excommunicated by conservatives for disagreeing with certain aspects of the Bush administration.
I wasn't aware of this excommunication. As far as I know, he is still one of the foremost conservative voices in America, and bar none, THE conservative voice amongst homosexuals.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't be so terse. Your post actually contains a fair bit of hope - the hope that you'll see how the qualities you've identified in Conservapedia, the qualities that trouble you - the echo-chamber atmosphere, the primacy of dogma over fact
My issue is that some of their facts are anything but. I also don't like how its geared toward a specific demographic. Facts are facts. There shouldn't be any kind of political or ideological spin nestled precariously within it.
Was anybody here surprised that "Conservapedia", in practice, would be a place where "facts" were determined as true not by how they matched the evidence but by how they matched conservativism? No, of course we weren't, because that's standard operating procedure for conservatives. What you see in Conservapedia, NJ, is what we see in nearly every media that's supposedly "balanced" towards conservatives.
That's fine. But Conservapedia does have a point, even though they hypocrtically did the same thing-- that liberal bias is overwhelmingly the majority view, especially in Western nations, like America, Canada, and England. Their approach would have been had it actually been balanced, and had their facts been glossed over by fact-checkers and editors.
Oh - I was going to suggest: If you want to communicate with the editors of Conservapedia, take advantage of the fact that
1) every article has a discussion ("talk") page to discuss its content, and
2) Wikis are universally self-referential. In other words - Conservapedia doubtless has an entry for Conservapedia (just as Wikipedia has an article on Wikipedia). So that's probably a good place for you to voice your concerns about the project.
Yes, I had considered doing just that. I was hoping for something a little more private, but if that is my only avenue of communication, I have no other option.
"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
™ Version 4.2
