Conservapedia is basically Wikipedia, but without a dirty liberal bias. I was gonna try to edit their article on Charles Darwin, and insinuate that he was a ravenous drunk in league with the devil, but I had to have an account. It won't let me register an account. I was also gonna tidy up some of their articles, adding in "citation needed" when appropriate (apparently, Buddhism and Hinduism are both the fourth largest religion in the world. Also, Adam had 56 children who all had the purest DNA so as to prevent mutations when they committed incest with each other! )
A question about Conservapedia: Why would I want to disregard one bias in favor of another one? I read the articles on William J. Clinton and several other more liberal profiles, and the bias was more than obvious, even though Conservapedia states in their commandments that they don't want opinions. They want solid facts. -J.
Because God tells them what is HIS opinion, which coincidentally coincides with theirs. And if God believes something, J. Allen, you'd better believe it too.
Thanks for the web tip I think I'm gonna have some fun there ... but then it's like beating a retard at checkers when you consider such entries: http://www.conservapedia.com/Magellan (this was the first 'random page' it opened). One of Dayton's students?
I call shenanigans. It's too ridiculous to be a serious Wiki. And you can't even create an account on it, which immediately brings up a red flag for me. For example, look at the Raphael page full of TMNT references. Don't tell me this is a serious conservative site! Putting aside the poor site concept, if the site started out as a serious Wiki, then it got vandalized to hell and became a parody of itself. And that should give the site owner a clue about how much a "conservative" Wiki is really necessary. Besides, if someone really believes the Wikipedia staff is targeting and editing out conservative views in favor of liberal ones, then the site itself should have those edits documented in the history, and they can make a blog with a list of links. A competing Wiki is a poor option.
Nope. It pretty clearly started as a class project for homeschooled wingnuts, organized by well-known-wingnut Phyllis Schlafly's son. Google is your friend.
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia Here's a taste of the first two: They're also pissed off that Wikipedia always favors the British spelling of words because the majority of Wikpedia users are America. I think they shut down open registrations because so many people were vandalizing the pages. I think the page for Jesus once said that he is considered history's most successful homosexual. It currently says that God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son.
Their front page says faith is a uniquely Christian concept. I don't think that's true. There's faith in Islam and Buddhism as well.
If Conservapedia is christian friendly and conservative based then wouldn't that mean there would be a christian-conservative bias? Also wouldn't this make it just as bad as Wikipedia or is it slated just right for you?
Well it's worse than Wikipedia because it has shit for information. Turn in a research paper with Wikipedia as a source, the professor will ask you to redo it or cite the references on the Wiki page as a source. Turn in a research paper with Conservapedia as a source, the professor will laugh heartily in his ivory tower as he smokes his pipe and writes a big red F on your paper.
