The problem is obvious. With multiple sources of information available, how do you maintain ideological purity? Take correspondent BobDog’s posting, above. With high praise he quotes a paper by Tim Grosclose and Jeffery Milyo (“A Measure of Media Bias.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. November, 2005: pp. 1191-1237) and presents his view: “This paper finds great support for a liberal bias in the media—which should suit this audience great (here is the long-awaited “proof” of liberal bias, rigorously derived!)”.
So far so good, but an inquiring mind might do a couple of things. A Google search of the title brings up slightly over 7200 “hits”, indicating the paper is has been widely looked at. Next discovery, is that the correct spelling of the lead author is Groseclose. A Google search with the correct spelling yields about 21,300 hits. That endeavor on Google takes about a minute.
Nether Conservapedia, nor Wikepedia carries a primary listing on Prof. Groseclose, that took about 30 seconds. Back to the Google searches. What emerges, with about 5 to 10 minutes of scanning the search engine is that this paper controversial, and that its methodology (the key to any given paper claiming scientific credulity) is flawed. The old story of garbage in, garbage out seemed to have escaped the authors. Two links for those who accept the myth that the quoted paper:
http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/06.01.01.html
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512220003
and of course a bit of back and forth:
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html
It strikes me that any encyclopedia, print or Web based, is no more than the first stop for an enquiring mind. Controversy is the fuel of knowledge, and with the resources available to day only a lazy mind, or those seeking ideological purity will accept a Wiki entry as the final word…
PS: Before today, I was unaware of Conservapedia. Thank God that I found it, it explains a bunch. I have spent about 2 to 3 hours entering it’s search engine with specific queries. As a source for knowledge, other than what the Christian Right wishes to advance as fact, it is useless.
PPS: It is to be expected, but deserves comment: It is impossible to define who or how these endeavors are being funded.
