Conservapedia: Your Number One Source for Blatant Hypocrisy and Flagrant Right-Wing BS
The Conservapedia is a conservative version of Wikipedia that is anything but what it claims to be: an “encyclopedia you can trust.” The Conservapedia goes to great lengths to indicate that Wikipedia is full of trivial and even misleading articles, and emphasize the high quality of their own offerings. OK, agree or disagree, that sounds interesting, right? Let’s check out their mission statement:
A different take on things than Wikipedia, from a conservative perspective. Fascinating! Heck, I’ll admit - even as an active Wikipedia user - that both good and bad articles get published, it’s part of the shared knowledge system. However, right next to their mission statement they have a breaking news story that implies Wikipedia editors are in on a murder plot. For the moment let’s just look at the story, and table the obvious question: why, of all of the breaking news stories in the world, does theirs concern Wikipedia and some WWF pro wrestler?
First, there is nothing to suggest subsequent edits weren’t made by people who read the first edit. What sounds like a conspiracy theory is actually a lone gunman scenario. Moreover, the term ‘editor’ to a non-Wikipedia user probably implies someone in a position of authority and oversite. However, the person in question was an anonomous user. In fact, anyone in the world could have made that edit! That is the equivalent of implying that an anonomous caller to a news tip line is a reporter. Whew, OK, let’s catch our breath here and look farther down the site. Oh wait, this sounds promising:
Well nice! Yes, the Conservapedia insists that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago but at least they’re open to other viewpoints, right? Well, right under the above section on the front page we find something rather surprising. Specifically, a pair of quotes, from the bible and history respectively, that show a rather impressively definitive perspective:
The biblical quote is fairly harmless - though it still calls into question how welcome unbelievers truly are on the site. Much more interesting is the historical quote. So wait, let me see here, democracy is built on a belief in God … which really only the church can provide a basis for. So, in other words, we won’t have a whole democracy in the long run unless we are a fully Christian nation? Wow. OK, so we welcome the heathens … so we can convert them?
At this point, what else is there to say? There are plenty of more hilarious, bizarre and downright strange articles to look at on Conservapedia. Still, if you want to learn more about the Conservapedia in a technical, logical or reliable sense, you might as well look at the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia. You’re at least somewhat more likely to get a straight answer that way.
While I agree the “conservapedia” is a non-starter, the quote above is just flat out wrong. The article does not “insist” on any date, and includes geological dates of ~13.7 billion years for the big bang theory.
“So wait, let me see here, democracy is built on a belief in God … which really only the church can provide a basis for.”
No, the church is not the basis for our belief in God. The word of the Lord is the basis for our belief. Any church that says they are the conduit to God is going directly AGAINST the bible. Jesus is the path to salvation.
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.� (John 14:16)
Conservapedia only has 9000 registered users compared to 75000 at Wikipedia. Wikipedia has over 5 million articles - Conservapedia 11000.
Wikipedia had it’s problems in the beginning too. It sounds like you have a bit of an axe to grind here.
so because the WWE knew long before the police did, that makes wikipedia in on the murder and all? it was edited from an IP address in the same town as WWE headquarters. you’re like all other crazy christian fanatics who believe anything asinine you tell them (like people being the son of a fake god made up from stealing parts of thousands of old roman cults beliefs?) i’ll bet you gotta approve this comment before it goes up right? so i’ll never get my opinion out cause it’s wrong right? you’re a joke. no wonder this is linked on something called “allsux.com”
Conservapedia is actually a satire site. Try not to get your panties in a bunch over it.
Omni: Insist may have been too strong, but they do write that quote “the best known date of creation [is] 6:00 p.m. Saturday, October 23, 4004 BC.” That strongly suggests to me that they are insisting that creation took place roughly around that time.
Max: If you disagree with that quote I took from Conservapedia, take it up with them, not me.
Bonhomme: If I have an axe to grind it’s one I just forged last night while reading over Conservapedia. The more hypocrisy on the page I saw the more annoyed I got. Honestly, I should think that anyone - conservative or liberal - would be equally appalled. Sure, Wikipedia had problems when it started up, but it was based on creating open dialogue and sharing information, not bashing other encyclopedias.
Jon: Try reading the post before you respond to it buddy :) Anyway, I don’t moderate out any comments unless they contain spam or *really* inappropriate content - I appreciate folks disagreeing with me and like to debate!
Also, I see no evidence to suggest (other than hilarious hyperboly) that Conservapedia is a satire site. Feel free to provide a source and/or link that demonstrates your claim.
Sorry to other commenters: I’ve had a lot of comments, and many are spam, due to a huge surge in traffic. I will sort the good from the bad and post them as soon as possible - please be patient.
WOW! They know the exact Time and Day of creation. They really are batshit crazy.
I can’t believe the article that Conservapedia wrote about Wiki. Who’s biased? They don’t report a single good thing about Wiki. Note to self: Never rely on Conservapedia.
It doesnt take reading the Bible to come up with 10/23 4004 BC as the date of the Creation. You guys might want to read ‘Inherit the Wind’, which came up with the same date, except it was 9a and not 6p. BTW, conservative wingnuts scream incorrect facts so loud it becomes impossible to tell whats satire and whats not. Course, this makes it easy to call them on their crap and then have them respond ‘its just a joke’. Kind of like when Rush Limbaugh did his TV show about Socks the cat and said ‘did you know the Clinton’s have a dog?’ and then showed a picture of 13 year old Chelsea.
So, who says Truth is absolute??…
Conservapedia: Your Number One Source for Blatant Hypocrisy and Flagrant Right-Wing BS The Conservapedia is a conservative version of Wikipedia that is anything but what it claims to be: an “encyclopedia you can trust.â€? The Conservapedia goes to gr…
[…] as excellent examples of a blog from 0 to 5 in no time (notice that this one is PR5!). This post on Conservapedia scandals has had an amazing 15,000+ visitors from Fark.com alone in the last few days. Another blog that has […]
As a (former) Conservapedia editor… the place is insane. Yes, YEC is insisted upon when the article comes to the eye of the vast majority of editors, yes, they go out of their way to attack Wikipedia, etc. Trust me, being a liberal – at all – and trying to survive there (another problem, they’re way to click-happy with that block button) is no fun. In fact, even being a moderate conservative is no fun, except perhaps if you are a YEC.
It is a shame that some people (from Conservapedia) feel the need to disregard a project that tries to bring information together (from Wikipedia) and see some inaccurices in some posts and feel they are being threatened. Separating yourself from a problem does not solve it.
Ok, conservatives who are not Christians ARE welcome, but really, we prefer the REAL Christians who proclaim Islam “The Enemy.” Now THAT’S the TICKET!! Uh, but wait, aren’t you supposed to LOVE your enemies? Shut up, you godless, liberal fag!!!
It takes a special kind of person, in my humble opinion, to call someone ‘godless’ after accusing them of not loving their enemies, but right before labeling them with a hate-filled term like ‘fag’ that reveals your own extreme ignorance and prejudice. Try practicing what you preach.
I just think it is funny that a site that is created through a collaborative group effort would be deemed liberal and in need of counterbalance.
I went on there for a time just to have some fun by posting perfectly true and varifiable facts that contradicted the conservative politics of the editors. I left after being put on temporary ban for claiming that the speed of light is approximatly three times ten to the eights meters per second, because I hadn’t given a source. My suggestion of some papers by Maxwell and Einstein were rejected as sources.
One of the editors - the creatively-named Conservative - has an interesting view on the speed of light: He believes it travels at three-E-eight now, but that until very recently it went a good many orders of magnitude faster - obviously, otherwise how could we see objects more than six thousand light years away? He remains silent regarding the problem of emission spectra.
[…] 5. He (seemingly sincerely) believes that God has chosen him to be the next president. Sound familiar? For all we know, he could be one of the top guys behind the craziest website in the world. […]
I think part of the problem is that while Wikipedia does have a distinct left-wing bias (it’s written mostly by educated, young, middle-class people after all) that’s tempered somewhat by the fact that it’s *supposed* to be bias free - so extreme opinions tend to get filtered out. Conservapedia, on the other hand, is deliberately right-wing, so naturally it drifts much further from the centre than Wiki does. If CP’s editors really did want a more open debate (which I doubt) their efforts would be better spent offering their side of that debate to Wikipedia.