Conservatives create own wiki site (Conservapedia.com)

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.

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.

Conservapedia has correct complaints, but then decided to make a very narrow-minded creationist version ... that is almost a parody of what conservatives believe, I'd almost think that is a Steven Colbert parody.

FairOpinion ... There is a gentleman I know who has seen the problem as you do and has the website reserved:
americapedia.org - The American Online Encylcopedia would be a 'fair and balanced' encyclopedia that eliminates wikipedia's bias issues, eliminates kid-unfriendly material, and allows/encourages wider POV articles (that are marked ax such) and more reliable sources. Wikipedia has a POV that pretends its not.

Anyone want to join up with that?

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

Rush Limbaugh (born January 12, 1951) is a conservative American radio talk show host.
Contents
< snip> The Rush Limbaugh Show
Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its blustery denounciations of anything liberal. He is often at odds with liberal activist Al Franken[1]. Limbaugh's style has been credited with "reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the Republican Party's 1994 Congressional victories"[2]. Rush's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 13.5 million listeners weekly, making Rush the '#1 Radio Talk Show Host'.[3]
The Limbaugh Letter The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.
1/2 Hour News Hour Rush has appeared on the 1/2 Hour News Hour "comedy" show on the Fox News Channel. [4]
Controversy
Limbaugh has repeatedly been the subject of scandal and controversy.
One of the earliest scandals occurred in 1993 when, "On his TV show, early in the Clinton administration, Limbaugh put up a picture of Socks, the White House cat, and asked, "Did you know there's a White House dog?" Then he put up a picture of Chelsea Clinton, who was 13 years old at the time...". Limbaugh, however denied that he was talking about Chelsea, stating that he was not making a joke, and Chelsea's picture was accidentally put up on a screen[5].
Limbaugh underwent a scandal, ten years later, in 2003 when his housekeeper was caught illegally purchasing oxycontin and other painkillers on his behalf. Limbaugh soon revealed that he was addicted to these drugs after massive back surgery. Both critics and supporters were shocked and disappointed by the revelation, since Limbaugh had publicly and repeatedly criticized those who used drugs illegally [6]. He sought treatment soon afterward.
How effective the treatment was is subject to debate, as, in 2005, when Limbaugh was returning from a vacation in the Dominican Republic customs officials found him carrying Viagra prescribed to another man in his luggage.[7]
Most recently Limbaugh has been criticized for his comments regarding Michael J. Fox's participation in Claire McCaskill's 2006 senate campaign in Missouri. In his radio broadcast, Limbaugh criticized a campaign commercial Fox filmed in support of McCaskill's position on taxpayer funded embryonic stem cell research. Limbaugh accused Fox of being off his medication in order to generate sympathy. In the commercial, Fox is visibly swaying and moving in sudden, jerky movements which are the symptom of Parkinson's Disease, and the reason the acclaimed actor quit the hit show Spin City.[8]

This Just In, How does that sound? Fair?

I'd say that is fair, if I were a communist. You left out the "D" grade he received in his college speech class Wikipedia felt compelled to include.

The reason I "left out" the D grade was that what I posted was not from wikipedia. It was from that phoney conservative site conservapedia

Overall wikipedia is fairer and less judgemental of Rush than conservapedia. It gives basic information, positives, and negatives. Conservapedia gives basic information, and negatives.

wikipedia: "Some progressive groups and individuals have questioned Limbaugh's accuracy."

conservapedia: "Limbaugh has repeatedly been the subject of scandal and controversy."

And as for that "D" grade: Context. Context. Context.

The reason Wikipedia felt compelled to include it was "Rush failed Speech" is an "Einstein failed math" thing.

As you (well not you, but any rational person) would realize if you bothered to read the citation for the statement
(5)^ Smollar, David J. "RADIO: The prof who 'flunked' Rush Limbaugh in speech is alive and well and running a California university campus." The Orange County Register. February 25, 1996. Pg. F3

"Overall wikipedia is fairer and less judgmental of Rush than conservapedia. It gives basic information, positives, and negatives."

Interesting observation. Just because a site lists a lengthy page of information regarding an individual doesn't necessarily mean that they are providing "information, positives, and negatives."

Being a "rational person", you seem to think that just because Conservapedia did not provide a lengthy history; they are providing "basic information, and negatives."

I will allow Conservapedia some wiggle room, taking into account the fact that it is a new site compared to Wikipedia. As time progresses, I'll will continue to evaluate the substance of their information.

As for your asinine attempt to present Wikipedia as a more "fairer" site, I would beg to differ. The selective information they provided relating to Mr. Limbaugh's "Philosophy", as well as their information provided under; "Balance and point of view", and, "Questions about accuracy" were rather selective in the words they chose to use as well as the details they chose to provide. Compared to, let's say, Howard Stern, for example. Mr. Limbaugh's profile is quite exhaustive in comparison. But then again, for a "rational person" such as yourself, Wikipedia is just being "fairer" and "less judgmental".

Or perhaps you're a contributing poster at Wikipedia. I do not know. I do believe Wikipedia serves Kool Aid. Or would you rather stick your head in the sand, Oztrich Boy?

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.