Conservapedia Makes World News

Not long ago I wrote a post about the conservative response to wikipedia's "liberal bias." A website called "Conservapedia." Click here to view that post. It's funny. I swear.

Anyway, despite its poor grammar and unfathomably bias and factually incorrect "information," Conservapedia has not only been a topic of numerous blogs, it has also become a world news story.

From the Guardian [Photos Added]:

It has been attacked many times in its short life, most notably by a former aide to Robert F Kennedy and the editor of Encyclopaedia Britannica. But now the online reference site Wikipedia has a new foe: evangelical Christians.

A website founded by US religious activists aims to counter what they claim is "liberal bias" on Wikipedia, the open encyclopedia which has become one of the most popular sites on the web. The founders of Conservapedia.com say their site offers a "much-needed alternative" to Wikipedia, which they say is "increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American".

Article continues
Although entries on Wikipedia are open for anyone to edit, conservative campaigners say they are unable to make changes to articles on the site because of inherent bias by its global team of volunteer editors. Instead they have chosen to build a clone which they hope will promote Christian values.

"I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia, told the Guardian. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."

Among his criticisms listed on Conservapedia, Mr Schlafly explains how many Wikipedia articles often use British spelling instead of American English and says that it "refuses" to give enough credit to Christianity for the Renaissance. "Facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored," he continues.

Mr Schlafly, a lawyer by day, is the son of a prominent American conservative, Phyllis Schlafly, renowned for her opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment. He says Conservapedia was created last November as a project for home-schooled children - and believes it could eventually become a reference for teachers in the US. "It is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind," he said...

Click here to read more.

In my previous post I listed the entry for "Fox News" along with its "sources." Below are some other entries, also courtesy of the Guardian:

How they compare:

Dinosaurs

Wikipedia, logo below

"Vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160m years, first appearing approximately 230m years ago."

Conservapedia

"They are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs."

US Democratic party

Wikipedia

"The party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention."

Conservapedia "The Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism, treasonous anti-Americanism, and contempt for America's founding principles."

Wow...

The Conservative Response to Truth

File this under: Stupid Sh*t. This will be a long post.

Conservatives, convinced that Wikipedia is full of anti-Christian, anti-American Sentiment, has created their own wiki - titled "Conservapedia." From the Conservapedia.com main page:

Conservapedia: A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.

Conservapedia has over 3,400 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, as well as more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 252,000 page views and over 14,800 page edits. Already Conservapedia has become one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet. This site is growing rapidly.

Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Contributions that comply with simple commandments are respected (and improved) to the maximum extent possible. Please improve this website as you use it, and please cite your sources. With your help, Conservapedia will continue to be an online encyclopedia you can trust. This is also a meeting place, and appropriate questions may be posted at Ask questions."

You can't make this stuff up. The full list of reasons wikipedia is bias is here, however I will place some of the notable gems of the bias in wikipedia below:

1. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users. Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.^[3]. Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.
2. Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of evolution,^[6] Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.^[7] Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it. Gresham's Law reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
3. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deceptio

There are more, but to appreciate it you have to visit the website yourself. Apparently, "open source code" is too open, and should be regulated by the wikipedia staff in accordance to common knowledge. For example, they should not write about evolution, since apparently no one believes in it.

Conservapedia is a plethora of biased crap, and as such it is hilarious. It purposely omits articles and things that do not support conservative values.

Here is the article for "fox news":

Fox news

From Conservapedia

Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a real new channel which would tell the truth. The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. ^[1] It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American. ^[2]. Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide. ^[3].

In 2005 the White House selected Tony Snow from Fox News to be the new White House press secretary which was a great honor for Fox because it showed how well it was presenting the real truth instead of the fake liberal version.

Apparently, the people who write conservapedia articles have a third grade reading level. BUT HERE IS THE BEST PART - Here are the "REFERENCES" for the above article. I told you, you can't make this shit up:

References

1. ↑ Fair & Balanced[1]
2. ↑ Sean Hannity[2]
3. ↑ We Report. You Decide.[3]
4. ↑ Tony Snow to be Named White House Press Secretary[4]

The first reference links to job opportunities at fox news. The 2nd, to a Sean Hannity "American Car Giveaway." The third: A page that has no words, it has 1 ad and a banner that says "We Report You Decide." And nothing else.

Wow. Just Wow. Wow... Wow.....