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 ...
Which site? Wikipedia or Conservapedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAMAS
Just a quick scan but I didn't see the term "terrorist" anywhere. Unbelievable.
Andrew's not the gay son (not that there's anything wrong with that)
If you see bias at wikipedia, then contribute to fix it. Nothing's stopping you.
Retreating to an alternate reality doesn't accomplish anything.
Well I think I've debunked that notion in the last couple of posts. Why don't you go edit those entries with the word terrorist and let us know how it goes?
"If you see bias at wikipedia, then contribute to fix it. Nothing's stopping you."
Except when they ban you. Someone here on FreeRepulic was banned for editing out some smears on Michael Savage's wikipedia page.
Wikipedia sucks and is a lost cause.
"'Twas Conservapedia."
What did it say?
Maybe they should change their name to Wiccapedia.
Not anytime soon
"In terms of traffic Alexa ranks Wikipedia 11th while Conservapedia is ranked 59587th. " Wikipedia vs Conservapedia
And a lot of that traffic is gawkers going to see what absurd stuff is posted on Conservapedia (They finally removed the article on the Pacific NorthWest Arboreal Octopus (very popular item http://www.conservapedia.com/Pacific_Northwest_Arboreal_Octopus this page has been accessed 13662 times) - But its tracks can still be found on Google)
I read the article and have to ask whether the entry for kangaroos and dinosaurs on Conservapedia is meant to be a joke or taken seriously
(According to the origins model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the Middle East and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood)
(...dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the Creation Week approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the Garden of Eden in harmony with other animals, eating only plants; that pairs of various dinosaur baramins were taken onto Noah's Ark during the Great Flood and were preserved from drowning; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today.)
Try searching on the word for "terror" on that Hamas page.
No need, they're doing a fine job as it is.
bump
"Retreating"?
I would not consider this to be retreating. I consider the source to be an alternative to grossly bias and inaccurate site that is hostile to conservative and Christians. In this country, we have that perogative.
EXAMPLE:
I visited Wiki yesterday and read information regarding Aryan Nation. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:
"...AN adherents and other right-wings groups..."
The term 'right-wing' is a description of conservatives in general, and we are regularly compared to the likes of Hitler and his kind. I refuse to support such a site that uses us inflamatory and false language.
I have already bookmarked Conservapedia
I have a feeling some conservatives will do a good job of that all by themselves.
streetpreacher, run a search on Rush at Wiki. I haven't, but I'm pretty sure the language they use will be any but fair.
Truth is not bashing.
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.