New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Conservapedia

post #1 of 34
3/3/07 at 5:17am
Thread Starter 
The religious right's answer to Wikipedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Quote:
Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance.
Reply
post #2 of 34
3/3/07 at 6:29am
haha

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conservapedia
Most-viewed entry: Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
Reply
post #3 of 34
3/3/07 at 6:38am
Oh man, that quote about the Renaissance is awesomely delusional. Poor, misunderstood, downtrodden christianity.
Reply
post #4 of 34
3/3/07 at 7:43am
I didn´t know that "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."
Way to measure that!
Oh, and I just love the "random page" button. Opens the door to greatness.
Reply
post #5 of 34
3/3/07 at 9:45am
"Is Democracy eben possible in Iraq?"

http://www.conservapedia.com/Is_demo...ble_in_Iraq%3F
Reply
post #6 of 34
3/3/07 at 11:26am
I wish I could go through life without thinking.
Reply
post #7 of 34
3/3/07 at 12:55pm
Of course, without Christianity, there likely wouldn't have been a need for the Renaissance.
Reply
post #8 of 34
3/3/07 at 1:23pm
"Because everyone knows reality has a left-wing bias."
Reply
post #9 of 34
3/3/07 at 1:27pm
Abortion causes breast cancer huh?I can feel my brain melting from reading some of these entries.
Reply
post #10 of 34
3/3/07 at 1:39pm
You just gotta love the level of details on that page:
For example the "Huns":
"Basically conquered the entire Roman Empire. They were very barbaric." That´s it.
Allright...

Edit: And did you know the definition of "Energy"?
"The ability to do work."

Shoot me.
Reply
post #11 of 34
3/3/07 at 5:37pm
I like how the history time frame starts with "Creation." It's obnoxious how nut job bible beaters try to make themselves synonymous with being conservative. As if being conservative automatically means you discredit evolution and believe in myths.
Reply
post #12 of 34
3/3/07 at 6:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by swedish miyagi
I like how the history time frame starts with "Creation." It's obnoxious how nut job bible beaters try to make themselves synonymous with being conservative. As if being conservative automatically means you discredit evolution and believe in myths.
Agreed.
Reply
post #13 of 34
3/3/07 at 7:39pm
That site is clearly a joke. Or at least, alot of the entrys are.

Check out this gem:

The name Jesus is simply the name "Joshua" translated first into Greek, then English. In Christian discourse, the name Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Jesus
Reply
post #14 of 34
3/3/07 at 9:41pm
Is it an open wiki? If so, I'm thinking liberal sabotage (and pretty good stuff at that).
Reply
post #15 of 34
3/3/07 at 9:56pm
Consevatives make no sense to me. Especially the assholes supporting Bush the sequel.
Reply
post #16 of 34
3/3/07 at 10:14pm
Fossils:

1. (noun) stone-like depictions of plants and demons planted by Satan and his minions (see: athiests, democrats, mormons, Ariana Huffington) to put scales on the eyes of God's children (see: Evangelicals, Debbie Boone) in order to perpetuate and lend scientific credence to the theory (see: falsehood) of evolution. 2. (noun) Andy Rooney.
Reply
post #17 of 34
3/4/07 at 3:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by swedish miyagi
I like how the history time frame starts with "Creation." It's obnoxious how nut job bible beaters try to make themselves synonymous with being conservative. As if being conservative automatically means you discredit evolution and believe in myths.
It's also dumb how they whole-heartedly agree with Creationism yet disbelieve Evolution. Which makes zero since you can't have one without the other. You can't evolve without being created and vice versa.

The same group who believe Adam and Eve rode their dinosaurs to church.
Reply
post #18 of 34
3/4/07 at 4:17am
Isn't Wikipedia, by its very nature, pretty much the embodiment of "averageness"? Or is there some secret filter that prevents conservatives from posting there? Oh, wait, there is. Conservapedia says so.
Reply
post #19 of 34
3/4/07 at 6:15am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD
Is it an open wiki? If so, I'm thinking liberal sabotage (and pretty good stuff at that).
That's my impression as well. I think the site is perhaps meant to be serious, but many of the articles have been tweaked. And the tweaking is pretty funny stuff, it has to be said. E.g.,

Quote:
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.
Reply
post #20 of 34
3/4/07 at 6:16am
How the hell is Wikipedia "liberal" ?

Some of these people need to get a hobby.
Reply
post #21 of 34
3/5/07 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan Travolta
Edit: And did you know the definition of "Energy"?
"The ability to do work."

Shoot me.
I find it hilarious that they put a reference for it.
Reply
post #22 of 34
3/5/07 at 8:05pm
So is Wikipedia a part of the Liberal Jew Gay conspiracy?
Reply
post #23 of 34
3/7/07 at 2:51am
Roman Empire

"An empire started by the Romans..."



priceless....
Reply
post #24 of 34
3/13/07 at 11:03pm
I do some editting on wikipedia and the level of partisan bickering in the discussions is absolutely crazy. And the best part is, since it's wikipedia, it's not just about politics. You can have ridiculously heated arguments about how much Spiderman can lift (for the record, I say 10 tons).

The left-right conflict on wikipedia usually looks like this:

A: This article is completely POV! How come <given liberal> doesn't have a criticisms/controversies page?!?! <rival conservative> has <ridiculously high number> controversies listed!!

B: This is a user edited encyclopedia, if you can cite a reliable source about a controversy or criticism of <given liberal> you can include it in the article.

C: Come on! This article is completely POV! How come <given liberal> doesn't have a criticisms/controversies page?!?! <rival conservative> has <ridiculously high number> controversies listed!!

(wash, rinse, repeat)

The discussion pages on wikipedia are more fun to read than the articles.

I write on the 1/2 Hour News Hour page, I try to keep it balanced, but there's this one guy who constantly asks how come the article is so POV because it only lists one semi-positive review of the show (from the Washington Post oddly enough). He doesn't grasp the fact that that particular review is the only positive one in the mainstream media.
Reply
post #25 of 34
3/14/07 at 12:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by myk
I do some editting on wikipedia
Hopefully not too much.
Reply
post #26 of 34
3/14/07 at 4:20am
Damn it, I put two ts in there, didn't I? Friggin' details.

Anyways, this gets my vote for favorite conservapedia article:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Rudy_Giuliani
Reply
post #27 of 34
3/15/07 at 6:59am
http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Con...a_Commandments

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Commandments
1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
5. As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.[1]
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talkages or on debate or discussion pages.
7. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.[2]
Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked. A blatantly inappropriate entry, such as vandalism or obscenity, can result in immediate blocking without warning. Sockpuppets are also blocked.
Reply
post #28 of 34
3/15/07 at 7:06am
http://www.conservapedia.com/Star_Wars

Quote:
Originally Posted by Star Wars Entry
...Recent findings have confirmed that George Lucas, who is most diligent in his study and faithful devotion to the historical dialectic and the will of the proletariat, DOES plan on finishing the epic Star Wars saga, which will parallel the eventual fall of Capitalism and the lie that is Democracy.

Episodes 7, 8 and 9 will, reportedly, show the Star Wars Universe's steady, patient transition into a rule by the true will of the people, a commune of the working class that spans an entire Galaxy.
Reply
post #29 of 34
3/15/07 at 7:40am
http://www.conservapedia.com/Penis
Reply
post #30 of 34
3/15/07 at 7:42am
"This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation"

Edit - btw...I tried just posting that under "[quote]" but it kept telling me, "This message is too short, please increase your message to at least 3 characters." or something like that. That ever happen to anybody else?
Reply
post #31 of 34
3/15/07 at 7:51am
http://www.conservapedia.com/Vagina

Quote:
Originally Posted by Conservopedia
This page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation
See, they don't discriminate!
Reply
post #32 of 34
3/15/07 at 8:26am
http://www.conservapedia.com/Alan_Colmes

Quote:
Alan Colmes is a radical and hard-hitting liberal who cohosts Hannity and Colmes with Sean Hannity. Despite radically different political philosophies, Hannity and Colmes are friends.
Jared - the software doesn't recognize text in quotes as counting towards the minimum character count.
Reply
post #33 of 34
3/15/07 at 8:31am
Well, that would make sense...although, I'm sure It's something that I would have run into before.

Oh well...thanks for the info.
Reply
post #34 of 34
3/17/07 at 6:56am
Whoops... new favorite!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Example..._conservapedia
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse