Conservapedia: Wiki-pedia's alter ego

Here's a link you need on your "Favorites" list . . . a response to Wiki-pedia's liberal bias. 

Link: Conservapedia:About - Conservapedia.

Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!

Conservapedia began in November 2006, as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students meeting in New Jersey. Conservapedia has since grown enormously, including contributors nationwide.

Conservapedia already has over one-half the number of entries as the Oxford Dictionary of World History. Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind.

Congratulations to the founders and developers of Conservapedia -- one of which is Andrew Schlafly, one of conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly's six children.

Comments

[Julie]

Schlafly needs to add Mark Rhoads' Hall of Fame entries to his resource.

[Señor Limpio]

Why not just correct the existing entries? What are we, separate but equal?

[Señor Limpio]

Oh, I readily admit that Wikipedia is sometimes biased, in any number of different directions. What I can't figure out is why you think that Wikipedia is accurate.

[Bruno]

NW,

The self-referential back-patting you engage in re: your arch-hero is quite endearing.

Some day all of us mouth breathing, green-toothed, knuckle-draggers will be as smart as you lefties and embrace "liberal based" concepts like collective force, socialization of one's will, and silly economic concepts that haven't worked anywhere on the the planet....

then again, maybe not.

[tfb]

Its a Wiki for gosh sakes a W I K I...if you do not like the contents, alter it...that is the point of a WIKI...if Wikipedia is liberal it is simply because conservatives have not been editing the contents...

tfb

[Bob Schmidt]

tfb,
the wiki bias exists not just in politics, but also in IT where articles about certain platforms, languages, vendors, etc are tilted favorably or unfavorably for no factual reason.

Try to "fix" some of the bias and the wiki police will ban your IP address.

[Bob Schmidt]

I just spent some time in Wikipedia checking if my recollections of its bias are correct. The bias is much worse than I had remembered.

I looked only at topics on business and information technology. Clearly there are enthusiasts for certain vendors who are spending a large portion of their time hyping technology in a way that makes their vendor look good in comparison to other vendors.

They will set up a set of criteria for the definition of a product that their product will meet. They conveniently omit from the criteria anything that would detract from their favorite.

In short, Wikipedia is not objective. It is accurate only within its selective use of facts that are convenient to promote a predetermined outcome.

Even for just one area of knowledge, it would take a major time consuming effort for a person or group to have an impact on reducing the bias and improving the accuracy of the entries.

[Andy Schlafly]

Thanks for the comments and insights here. I've added Bob Schmidt's observation to 22 other examples of bias and outright errors on Wikipedia. See: http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

[richCares]

what about examples of flat out errors on conservapedia. A really bad site, and really bad on science. pathetic!

why do some want to make stupid a synonym for conservative

[Jon Swift]

The bias of Wikipedia is clear from its name. Conservapedia is based on good conservative Christian values while Wikipedia is based on Wiccan.
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/02/conservapedia.html

[Randolph Carter]

The bias of Wikipedia is clear from its name. Conservapedia is based on good conservative Christian values while Wikipedia is based on Wiccan.

wow. I didn't know that Ward Cunningham was a Pagan.

Thanks for the info!

[james]

um - at least wikipedia known there are no such things as unicorns ;)

[Will]

Hmmmm.... don't really know where to start.

I think Senor Limpio said it best above:

"What I can't figure out is why you think that Wikipedia is accurate."

If you don't like an article, edit it. If you feel that your edits are appropriate, but that the "world wide liberal conspiracy" is stacked against you and is removing your edits, complain.

It's your right as an American. Exercise it.

But let's not hide behind the laughable notion that conservapedia is somehow shining a torch of flawless and noble knowledge into the dark corners of anti-Christian and anti-American web posting.

I was about to reference the content for the entry "CE" (as opposed to "AD"), but see that someone has changed it from what it was yesterday.

I sent my sister (a committed Christian) the link yesterday, so saved part of it in a mail. Here is what it said yesterday:

'The only plausible explanation is that "Common Era" is an attempt to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar. But there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names in the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods.' (He forgot the months of the year and that Christmas and Easter are two of the largest pagan festivals in history, but we won’t go into that).

'The conclusion is obvious: usage of the term "Common Era" seeks to deny recognition to Christianity. Beware of other examples of this, and beware how schools and tests are converting to "Common Era" dating systems to appease hostility to Christianity.'

This really is Fox “News” at its best: “the only plausible explanation” (Plausible according to whom? Based on what? Where is your source?) and “The conclusion is obvious” (Obvious to whom? Based on what? Where is your source?).

No mention that "AD" stands for "anno domini" ("year of our Lord") and so is a defacto profession of faith in Christ.

If I were a committed Jew, Muslim (or for that matter, anyone other than a Christian who did not share the belief that Jesus Christ is my Lord), I might not want to comply with what this entails.

But as we all (Jew, Christian, Muslim or whatever) for historical reasons use the same calendar now globally, it is common to us all and so, without putting religious overtones into the mix, "CE" is a perfectly neutral term to use.

But to be honest, how often do any of us write "AD" or "BC" in dates?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Oh, and as a PS - "wiki" has nothing to do with "wiccan". Jon Swift, try Google.

[Steven Ward]

Dah! people. Of course you will find bias in wikipedia. That's because it is written by anyone who feels compelled to add to it, and most people have a bias, just like you. This is especially true with any topic having to do with religion, philosophy, politics, history, biographies, as well as information technologies. In fact, many biographies of current popular figures such as musicians and actors are commissioned them, their agents, or their fans -- or possibly their detractors. Technologies and commercial products (like cars for example) are written by the very companies that manufacture or sell the products. Do you think Nike, General Motors, and Coco Cola don't create or "correct" wikipedia articles?

[Tamale]

This is an outrage. A "trustworthy" 'collaborative collection of knowledge' site pops up, but then openly admits to only allowing edits from particular groups of people? What the hell?

Besides, how can there be 'bias' on a site that allows edits from anyone? That just doesn't make any sense. Think about it. There are just as many 'liberals' in charge of things over at wikipedia as there are 'conservatives', and anyone making a verifiable argument can get their work added to wikipedia, but that simply isn't the case with conservapedia...

Sadly, this is what I've seen a lot of from right-extremists lately.. if something isn't going the way you want, just plug your ears and go "LALALALALALALA"

[1239717220]

There's No One as Irish as Barack O'Bamfuturama into the wild green yonder , [URL=http://getright.invisionzone.com/index.php?showuser=6332]futurama into the wild green yonder[/URL] , http://getright.invisionzone.com/index.php?showuser=6332 futurama into the wild green yonder ,
a!,