once you slap a name on a website like that “Conserva-”, it’s already being limiting
In a propaganda sense, of course you are correct. But as a matter of philosophy, "O’Sullivan’s First Law” - "All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing” - is correct. Nobody can expect an organization to be permanently moderate. It can start that way, but gravity says it cannot stay that way.The way to understand it, if you aren’t satisfied with the logic presented in O’Sullivan’s First Law, is as follows:
It follows that whatever term you choose to denote “neither conservative nor liberal” will, sooner or later, be coopted to mean the same as “moderate” does now.
- The public discourse is conducted via journalism.
- Journalism in America is a cartel. " People of the same trade seldom meet together, as Adam Smith put it, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” And journalists "meet together,” virtually, on a continual basis via the wire services (and otherwise as well).
- The “conspiracy against the public” which is easily observable in the journalism cartel is the fact that it defines words like “moderate” or “centrist” or “progressive” or “liberal” or - the big one - “objective” in terms of its own self interest. In the long run the journalism cartel will define any and all such terms to mean nothing other than what best suits the journalism cartel. The distinction between “objective” and the other terms is only that “objective” is applied exclusively to members of the cartel - and the other terms are never applied to a member of the cartel.
The term “sophist” is a perfect example of the phenomenon. What’s wrong with being wise? Nothing - but claiming to be wise leads directly to being a propagandist. To contend with sophists, it was necessary to become modest - and claim only to love wisdom, not to be a possessor of it. Hence, “philosophers” claim to love wisdom (thereby claiming that wisdom is a thing) without claiming to be wise.
- sophist
- 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
- philosopher
- O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
- philosophy
- A fondness or love for wisdom that leads to searches for it; hence, seeking a knowledge of the general principles of elements, powers, examples, and laws that are supported by facts and the existence of rational explanations about practical wisdom and knowledge.
Thus a “conservapedia” is humble enough to name itself with an identifiable POV. Wikipedia, not so much.
You do make some good points. ;-)
I just merely approach the whole thing from the perspective of, “is it true or false ?” The ugly argument over my labeling a place as a “ghost”, because it ceased to have residents since the last government survey of 40 or more years ago. I cited my conclusions and how I reached them and said resources, but that simply wouldn’t appease the editor gods with bad attitudes.
If a point can be proven or disproven when submitting research, it should simply be allowed. If there is a problem with it and someone takes issue and can submit work refuting the work, then do so. There’s way too much, “We don’t like how you researched this, but we can’t REFUTE it” garbage going on at WP. It’s sloppy, it’s lazy, and it makes almost everything on their website suspect as a result.