Conservapedia vs. Wikipedia (groan)

[sociotard]

This is just a link to an annoying little site called conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Maybe groaning is a bit much, but I really like wikipedia. I don't use it for anything that absolutely has to be right, for that I go to the campus library and look through their journals. However, if I only need something quick and easy or if I'm getting started and need to take a first step, wikipedia is wonderful. When people speak ill of wikipedia, I get annoyed.

Anyway, conservapedia is based on the wikipedia model, but feels that wikipedia has too much of a liberal bias. Go check it out. see what you think. maybe I'm wrong. I just think that, as conservatives, we need to watch our own, and some of their statements are, frankly, silly.

[cripplecreek]

I think it's a bad idea to label any encyclopedia type site as liberal or conservative. Obviously Wiki is far from perfect but just the name conservapedia just screams bias and will never be seen as a legit source.

[ShawTaylor]

"but I really like wikipedia"

I don't.
It screams liberal, anti-Bush, anti-American bias

"but feels that wikipedia has too much of a liberal bias"

It does.

[rockrr]

When people speak ill of wikipedia, I get annoyed.

When people get annoyed because other folks point out how slap-dashed, how hackneyed, and how hopelessly biased wacky-pedia is, I get amused.

If you don't mind people pointing and snickering whenever you cite wacky as a source, then by all means go for it!

If you're content to go to the MacDonald's of literary and intellectual knowledge then I say bon appétit!

[word_warrior_bob]

Here is an excerpt from Bill Clinton's biography slamming Bush like a DU-er. (From CONSERVAPEDIA)

Although nothing came out of this investigation, and it turned out that Clinton actually lost money on his investment, one of the results of the investigation was that the special prosecutor turned to investigating other Clinton activities, one of which (the Monica Lewinsky scandal) resulted in an impeachment trial. Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city. Obviously, he is the devil incarnate. Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, an action which was properly seen as a mere attempt to distract the nation from the Monica Lewisnky scandal.

[sociotard]

Ah, so it's just doing the Colbert Report thing and pretending to be conservative to mock conservative.

Okay, well that makes a lot more sense. I should have known better

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Wikipedia rocks. I'm addicted to it - everything from music, to historical events or geographic locations (I read about the islands of Chatham just east of New Zealand - very cool!)

I wish conservatives would stop bashing sites such as Wikipedia and Google. Fight them in the marketplace then, like conservatives are supposed to be doing instead of complaining.

[LtdGovt]

I use Wikipedia for historical purposes exclusively. What's conservapedia going to say about Cicero?

[LtdGovt]

You're correct. No 'moderate' is going to use Conservapedia. If you don't use and correct Wikipedia, you're effectively ceding it to the liberals.

[Oztrich Boy]

Wikipedia rocks Why would anyone want to wikipedia rocks?

I'm addicted to it - everything from music, to historical events or geographic locations

Well you are using it for facts. Anybody using any encyclopedia to get opinions is asking to be mocked.

Worth a giggle Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

Did you know that Wikipedia articles often cover topics and spelling Americans don't understand?

[Oztrich Boy]

What's conservapedia going to say about Cicero?

Not a lot Cicero :(From Conservapedia) 106-43 BC Roman orator, statesman, lawyer and philosopher, spoke against Antony, who had him killed.

Compare wikipedia

[ShawTaylor]

"Wikipedia rocks. I'm addicted to it -"

Wouldn't use Wikipedia if I had a gun pointed at my head.
I have always used Encarta from long before Wikipedia was even started.

"I wish conservatives would stop bashing sites such as Wikipedia and Google. "

Conservatives have no business patronizing those 2 loony left, anti-American sites


"Fight them in the marketplace then, like conservatives are supposed to be doing instead of complaining."

That's exactly what Conservapedia is doing: fighting the left wing vermin at Wikipedia in the marketplace.
I am going to add Wikipedia site to my favorites

[Oztrich Boy]

Wouldn't use Wikipedia if I had a gun pointed at my head.

I am going to add Wikipedia site to my favorites

You flip-flopper you.

[ShawTaylor]

"I am going to add Wikipedia site to my favorites"

"You flip-flopper you."

Typo.
Correction:
I am going to add Conservapedia site to my favorites

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Conservatives have no business patronizing those 2 loony left, anti-American sites

I said bashing, not patronizing. That's fine if you don't use them. But complaining about them only makes you no different than a lib.

[Oztrich Boy]

I am going to add Conservapedia site to my favorites

1. you better not be on dial-up. Painfully slow is putting it mildly

2. Why?

[ShawTaylor]

" you better not be on dial-up. Painfully slow is putting it mildly "

I am there already. No problems whatsoever. Plus I use broadband, like most Americans do these days.

"2. Why?"

# 1. I think Wikipedia is evil.
# 2. Anything that helps the conservative cause should be encouraged.

[steve-b]

I checked the Conservapedia article on George W. Bush -- as of this writing, it is an absolutely PATHETIC little stub, half of it about liberal whining over the 2000 and 2004 election. Who on earth is ever going to take something like that seriously?

[Tainan]

This could very well be a "false flag" site used to discredit anything connected to the name/term 'conservative'


Looks that way to me...so far.

[retMD]

I gather that Conservapedia was put together by a high school class taught by one of Phyllis Schafly's (of the Eagle Forum) children. So I don't think it was meant to be a "Colbert" type site. However, one of the science blogs posted about it, especially some of the science entries. As a result, lots of trolls began editing entries, with predictable results.

I don't think it's a great idea to present science entries as conservative or liberal, and having it mostly written by high school students may not be the best idea for something claiming to be authoritative. They're notably light on citing sources, as well.