Presenting … Conservapedia!
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”.
Oh. My.
Among those examples of “bias” are:
- The use of BCE/CE instead of BC/AD. Now, I prefer the latter, too, for traditional purposes. But this isn’t “anti-Christianity,” it’s an attempt to be non-religious (which, believe or not, is not the same thing). Further, the charge is not that Wikipedia forces the BCE/CE standard (the way Conservapedia forces BC/AD in its “Commandments“), but that it “allows” it. Egads!
- Wikipedia “allows” various British/non-American spellings in various topics, “even though most English speaking users are American,” Those damn Limey-loving bastards!
- Wikipedia doesn’t have a conservative bias, and actually emphasizes evolution, “even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of evolution.” Most of the objections are that Wikipedia is biased because it doesn’t include conservatively biased sources.
- Wikipedia has lots of trivial entries and errors, and only relies on the contributing public (instead of Accepted Authorities) to correct it. Loosey-goosey elitists!
Or, to quote Conservapedia’s entry on Wikipedia …
The administrators who monitor and control the content on Wikipedia do not represent the views of the majority of Americans, and many are in fact not American. For example, only 10% of Americans accept evolution as it is taught in public school, yet many Wikipedia administrators accept it as a sourced fact, and will censor material that contradicts evolution.
Conservapedia sure seems a lot more interested in ideological correctness (“we favor Christianity and America”) than in actually dealing with facts, and in tearing down Wikipedia than in demonstrating that it’s a reliable source of information. Yeesh.
(via SEB)
Yes, this is exactly what we need. More conservative BS being fed down our throats. As if we didn’t have enough of it already.
So…
Truthiness and Factiness all in on place!
How convienient. ;P
I don’t mind an alternative wiki-based encyclopedia, or even one with a conservative take on things.
What does bother me is that either they are blind to the hypocrisy of criticizing Wikipedia for liberal bias when clearly and proudly touting their own conservative bias while at the same time declaring their “truthiness” — or they don’t care about the hypocrisy / inconsistency. Neither makes me inclined toward drawing on them as a resource.
I wonder what they’d say if they read Wikipedia’s official policy on English spelling: namely, use the spelling most appropriate to the article. If it’s about St. Louis, Missouri, use American spellings. If it’s about London, England, use the British spelling. Wow, that’s… really anti-American. Not.
But I have to agree: The most bizarre thing in here is the claim that Conservapedia is going to be “free of political correctness” when their self-declared purpose is to make something that they consider politically correct!
I want to believe it’s a parody, like Landover Baptist, but I’ve seen enough craziness coming from the far right that I can’t quite convince myself…
Re: the hypocrisy
“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Amen, brother.
Worse, if there’s a liberal bias to Wikipedia, I don’t think it’s so much intentional as just the outcome of the dynamic involved in its publication — whereas Conservapedia is explicitly and intentionally biased.
And they’re incapable of understanding the irony.
Oh joy…
Just read that one of the main backers of Conservapedia is the Eagle Forum.
*GiggleSnortLaugh*
Ummm….
Yeah….
Why do I get the feeling that this thing is being created by Homeschoolers chained to their computers.
*GiggleSnortLaugh*
Ummm….
Yeah….
Why do I get the feeling that this thing is being created by Homeschoolers chained to their computers.