[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.

[LtdGovt]

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

[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?

[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.

[Kurt_Hectic]

Conservapedia is a moronic consept. Wikipedia is excellent, if you read what it says with a proper amount of critical sense, like the rest of the stuff on www and media as a whole.

[Matchett-PI]

Here's a link to add to your thread:

Conservapedia - the Us Religious Right's Answer to Wikipedia
Buzzle.com ^ | 3/1/2007
Posted on 03/02/2007 12:24:05 AM EST by Alex Murphy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1793760/posts