Conservapedia talk:Attribution

Some discussion of anonymous sources would be beneficial to the project. Several abominable abuses were discovered in reviewing the various Torture related articles. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia (#19) cites how pervasive gossip is in WP and how Conservapedia seeks to avoid it. We would do good to discuss and formulate our own guideline how they are to be properly attributed.

In historical writing I employ extremely stringent standards, however in current news items some leeway may occassionally be warranted. This however, is where hidden biases creep in, and only an experienced and trained eye might be able to catch it. We have now some good examples to use and discuss how to properly vet and attribute controversial claims -- both to improve those articles, and articulate an overall guideline that would improve the encyclopedia, show a distinct difference between Conservapedia and WP's bias, alleviate needless disputes among editors, and identify trolls and vandals more quickly.

Let's get some serious students of media bias invloved in this discussion. It would be a very useful learning experience how to detect media bias, as well as proper research methods in writing articles, and organizational aspects of improving our project. RobS 12:33, 24 April 2007 (EDT)