Posted on 03/06/2007 7:32:38 AM PST by 300magnum
A conservative alternative in the up-and-coming online encyclopedia field said it aims to combat what it calls "liberal bias" on the highly popular collaborative Wikipedia.com site.
Conservapedia.com was formed late last year in a bid to challenge the established online encyclopedia giant Wikipedia, which is one of the 15 most visited websites in the world.
The conservative encyclopedia began as a class project for Andrew Schlafly - whose mother, Phyllis founded the Eagle Forum - and 58 of his New Jersey history students. It claims to have grown since then to be "one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."
The opening screen for the website states that it "is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American."
The site claims that many of Wikipedia's entries provide dates with the "anti-Christian" C.E. (Common Era) rather than A.D. (Anno Domini, or in the year of our Lord) and claims that Christianity receives no credit for its role in great advances like the Renaissance.
"Tired of the liberal bias every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears?" the Conservapedia site asks. "Now it's time for the conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!
"Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America ... You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of 'political correctness.' "
A representative of the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent company of Wikipedia, told Cybercast News Service Monday that its editors "come from all political spectrums" but that they are held to a strict code of neutrality.
"Wikipedia articles are neutral and adhere to a neutrality policy called NPOV (Neutral Point of View). This means that all major viewpoints are represented in an entry reflecting the diversity of our editors as well as insuring the stability of our articles."
The Wikipedia website explains the NPOV concept, saying that all articles must present "fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."
"The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented," the website added.
Wikipedia co-founder Jim Wales said this principle is "absolute and non-negotiable."
Conservapedia did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comments, but Schlafly was quoted by the New York Times as saying that his site achieves "what Wikipedia says they are trying to do but actually don't do."
The relatively new Conservapedia site boasts over 3,800 entries compared to 1.67 million articles in the English section of the multi-lingual Wikipedia site.
Cant seem to trust an encyclopedia any moron can edit.
We had a thread on "conservapedia", I pasted a portion of Bill Clinton's bio which was written by a TOTAL LEFTY MOONBAT.
Either someone has hijacked conservapedia, Schafleys' son is a flaming liberal, or CNS hasn't done any research and Shcafleys' son has no involvement.
Oddly enough, Google leads me to a dozen sites whacking Conservapaedia but no direction to the site itself- search term was "conservapaedia".
This one???
http://www.conservapedia.com/Bill_Clinton
"Cant seem to trust an encyclopedia any moron can edit."
That bears repeating. I don't want an encyclopedia that is slanted either left or right. I want to look something up that still has the same meaning as it did 50 or 100 years ago. This "evergreen" concept is real joke. Look at what has happened to the interpretation of the Constitution.
Why wouldn't these folks just spend all of that time trying to get Wikipedia right? Wikipedia has already set the standard and gets all of the eyballs. I appreciate the effort, but I think it's misdirected.
You could ask Mr. Murdock (sp) why he spent all that money on Fox News, instead of trying to fix CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.
This one???
_____
Here's the version I posted a while ago, if anyone can edit this site, how the hell can it be conservapedia? Lefties can spend all day turning it into DUmmypedia.
I guess someone changed it back.
____
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.
Or they work for congressmen, deleting factual, but embarrassing statements...
Aparently this new site cannot handle an increase in bandwidth.
It is working for me.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
"Oddly enough, Google leads me to a dozen sites whacking Conservapaedia but no direction to the site itself- search term was "conservapaedia"."
That's because you spelled it wrong. They spell it "pedia."
I can't even figure out how to creat an account. log in/create account go to same page. Nothing separate for create.
I didn't try to do any edits myself, but you can see on the bottom of the page there's a thing there to add and edit the site.
Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (b. 1947) was First Lady of the United States of America during the Clinton Administration from 1993 to 2001. Though she had virtually no connection to New York, she exploited the resignation of the Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as an opportunity for her to win a safe Senate seat and prepare for her own bid to become President. With the power of the White House she obtained the Democratic nomination for this Senate seat, and then won easily in the heavily Democratic state of New York in 2000.
Bwaahaahaaa!
Wiki sucks... everything is so slanted there...Dums favorite source of "facts"....LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.