Posted on 03/25/2007 7:07:08 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Welcome to the Web site Conservapedia.com, founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly. The site describes itself as "a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American."
Even when the heart of the definition is the same, Wikipedia and Conservapedia differ on the delivery.
On each other
Wikipedia: Conservapedia is a wiki project to construct an encyclopedia with articles that are pro-American, socially conservative and supportive of conservative Christianity.
Conservapedia: Some users feel that despite the site's claims of a "neutral point of view," there is a consistent anti-American and anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia entries (going beyond a mere absence of pro-American and pro-Christian bias). There are many examples of bias in Wikipedia because it is edited primarily by liberal atheists who lack basic understanding of logic.
(Excerpt) Read more at contracostatimes.com ...
Well, it's a start.
I hope he keeps a fair minded view about the danger of men having sex with men.
I don't want to bash homosexuals, but there are many aspects of the act that are unatural and unhealthy.
It's entry on Gravitation was actually posted outside one of the offices in our physics department, since it was so ridiculously wrong. Looks like the crazy material has been removed now, thank goodness.
Its entry on Gravitation was actually posted outside one of the offices in our physics department, since it was so ridiculously wrong. Looks like the crazy material has been removed now, thank goodness.
Hmmmm.
Not the way to go. It should present itself as a "fair and unbiased" alternative to Wikipedia.
If this thingn really wants to impress, answer this one:
What is the definition of "conservative"?
And not the FReeper definition of, "I'm not sure, but it sure ain't YOU!"
I think you are thinking Sullivan.
Walter Cronkite killed "fair and unbiased."
I just checked with google and the homosexual son of Schlafly is named John.
I didn't know she had more than one son.
Yep and it should try to accomplish that. A straight-shooting site would be best and far better than the status quo.
Here is my take on Conservatism. If you subscribe to the following, you are a conservative:
1.) Personal responsibility is a necessity of citizenship
2.) Government has its purposes, but should be minimized
3.) The military is an honorable, and vital profession
4.) National Defense is not just a campaign issue
5.) Peace in and of itself is not victory, the end all, or the be all
6.) Not everyone is equal in capability, both physically and intellectually
7.) Not everyone is going to make the same amout of money, or deserves to
8.) The Judiciary is meant to interpret law, not make it.
9.) Discrimination does not become something else because you call it something else.
10.) Words have meaning, and cannot be endlessly twisted to suit your needs.
11.) Morality may not be completely absolute, but it is closer to being absolute than relative.
Liberals do not understand that a label is only as good as the person or group creating the label. Basically we all know it as the admonition of "Consider the Source" when insulted.
Like Ronald Reagan, most conservatives are comfortable enough in our political "skin" to enunciate in precise terms what it is that we believe in.
Liberals, progressives, socialists, communists or whatever other label they may apply to themselves, cannot do that. Their dogmas and ideologies often require that people NOT know and understand what they are up to. I think Richard Nixon said it best when he spoke of Alger Hiss:
"If the American people understood the real character of Alger Hiss, they would boil him in oil."
The descriptive titles Liberals, Leftists, Progressives, Socialists or Communists may be substituted for "Alger Hiss" and retain complete accuracy.
Remember the good and the bad thing about wikipedia type approach is that ANYONE could change it.
I wouldn't put it past a bunch of liberals to target Conservapedia and make outragously incorrect entries.
"It should present itself as a "fair and unbiased" alternative to Wikipedia."
I agree -- maybe there is room for a THIRD Wikipadia. FoxNews shoudl sponsor it.
FAIRIPEDIA.
"I don't want to bash homosexuals, but there are many aspects of the act that are unatural and unhealthy."
Why? You gave a few good reason to do so in your response.
I bash them whenever I get the opportunity - verbally that is.
Ping...with the notice of needing info on Germany! :)
I'd rather see an Ameripedia that is objective and non-partisan.
Differences with Wikipedia
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
1. We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
2. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.
3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children.
4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.
5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.
6. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts, while Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public are free to censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.
7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.
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.