New On line Conservapedia

[scribblet]

Hmmm, will have to look into it, doesn't hurt to have a source other than wikki, I always wondered about some their info.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional...ticleid=1000968

“Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. Now it’s time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!” So begins the rallying cry for Conservapedia.com, aspiring right-leaning rival to Wikipedia.org - the online encyclopedia project that now claims 7.2 million articles in 251 languages and traffic that ranks it among the world’s top 15 sites. Wikipedia is adamant about striving to maintain a “neutral point of view.” But because it is “written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world,” the site acknowledges that “critics have questioned Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy.”

Enter Conservapedia.

“We don’t make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does,” it asserts. Instead this self-described “Trustworthy Encyclopedia” offers fair-and-balanced versions of Wikipedia articles in a format intelligently designed to evoke the look of Wikipedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

[jdobbin]

Hmmm, will have to look into it, doesn't hurt to have a source other than wikki, I always wondered about some their info.

That's a very funny site. Wrapped in an American flag too.

[Shakeyhands]

I've never noticed a 'bias' on Wiki... must just be me.

[Remiel]

Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public.

We don’t make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does

No, but they do make false claims of intelligence, demonstrated by the first quote.

[kimmy]

The thing with Wikipedia is, it's what its users make it.

It's a great starting point if you're interested in a topic.

How a Wikipedia article is supposed to work is: users add information, complete with sources and footnotes. Other users review the article and if they feel the information is unclear or inaccurate or reflects bias, they make note of it and suggest changes.

It works great for articles about technology or other areas where there's hard information, but sometimes not so good if you're looking for information about a contentious topic.

It's great if you want a chronology of the 7 Day War, but not very good if you want to know the history of it.

Some topics attract people with passionate opinions who want their perspective to be reflected in the Wikipedia article. Avid environmentalists might add a plethora of information and footnotes to a global warming article, for instance.

Now, here's the thing. If "Conservapedia" ever takes off in any significant way, it will also attract people with passionate opinions on subjects. What happens then?

-k

[Figleaf]

“Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears?

I love this. Conservatives see 'liberal bias' every time they deal with information and knowledge, but they never seem to grasp the implications.

Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public.

Measured in what, metric 'liberons' or imperial 'conservabells/sq.ft.'?

Now it’s time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!” So begins the rallying cry for Conservapedia.com, aspiring right-leaning rival to Wikipedia.org...

ROTFLMAO!

The potential for ludicrous slogans is endless:

Conservapedia -- alternative to the facts

Conservapedia -- the source even you don't really believe

Even their real one is funny...

Conservapedia -- "the Trustworthy Encyclopedia”

“We don’t make false claims of neutrality, ..." Instead it ... offers fair-and-balanced versions of Wikipedia articles in a format intelligently designed to evoke the look of Wikipedia.

That's just rich!

I predict utter irrelevance for the conservapedia.

[bush_cheney2004]

....I predict utter irrelevance for the conservapedia.

They said the same thing about Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

[BubberMiley]

They said the same thing about Rupert Murdoch and Fox News.

No, they didn't.

Stephen Colbert did say, however, that reality has a liberal bias.

[gc1765]

I gotta agree with Kimmy on this one...

Wikipedia is a great starting point. The nice thing about wikipedia is they usually provide references/links to more reputable sites. I wouldn't assume anything on wikipedia is correct without checking the references first...although from personal experience, I have found wikipedia to be correct at least 99.9% of the time.

[B. Max]

I gotta agree with Kimmy on this one...

Wikipedia is a great starting point. The nice thing about wikipedia is they usually provide references/links to more reputable sites. I wouldn't assume anything on wikipedia is correct without checking the references first...although from personal experience, I have found wikipedia to be correct at least 99.9% of the time.

Even one of the original founders of wikipedia quit in disgust, who said in a radio interview it was full of liberal bias and inaccuracies.

[Black Dog]

Even one of the original founders of wikipedia quit in disgust, who said in a radio interview it was full of liberal bias and inaccuracies.

Ah, and of course the conservative reaction is to respond with bias and inaccuracies of their very own. Thumbs up, chief!

[B. Max]

Ah, and of course the conservative reaction is to respond with bias and inaccuracies of their very own. Thumbs up, chief!

Like what for instance.

[Black Dog]

Like what for instance.

Is that not the raison d'etre of the Conservapedia? Oh sure, they'll try to spin it as "factual", but really, if you believe that, I've got some primo land down in the Everglades that's yours for cheap.

[B. Max]

Like what for instance.

I've got some primo land down in the Everglades that's yours for cheap.

Sounds like a good place to bury Wikipedia.

[Figleaf]

Even one of the original founders of wikipedia quit in disgust, who said in a radio interview it was full of liberal bias and inaccuracies.

Of course it's full of inaccuracies! It's edited on the fly by amateur contributors.

But I'm curious about the alleged 'liberal bias'. Presumably it shows whatever 'bias' is preponderant among contributors. So, if it has a "liberal" bias, doesn't that mean that the preponderance of contributors must share this supposed 'bias'? And if so, is it correct to consider it a 'bias' rather than simply the common view?

And in that case, Conservapedia is really just a private intellectual ghetto that conservatives are creating for themselves.

[GostHacked]

I get bias and a daily Bible quote??? SOLD !!!!!

Welcome to the NoSpin-pedia !!!!

[Shakeyhands]

well 4 and change years later...

It's nice to see that as far as I can recall not one member here has attempted to use this site as a cite. Good work people!!!

You really should check out the homosexuality, Dawkins and Obama entires there, quite funny.

[Michael Hardner]

The populist conservatives that so enrage many of us are anti-academia. This means they discount things like scholarship, sourcing of knowledge, attempts for objective inquiry. They have seen that in the world, and they just don't like it.

That isn't to say that these folks are wrong, per se. The root cause of their angst is some kind of unhappiness, and academia can't really help them, nor can egghead politicians, judges and so on.

It would be better foe everyone if their leaders made more of an attempt to bridge the gap between the academic world, and the populist world that elects them.

[TimG]

The populist conservatives that so enrage many of us are anti-academia. This means they discount things like scholarship, sourcing of knowledge, attempts for objective inquiry. They have seen that in the world, and they just don't like it.

You are half right. The populist conservatives are "anti-academia" but they are not against objective inquiry and expanding our knowledge. The problem is many academics mistake what is really nothing but their opinion for knowledge.

[Michael Hardner]

You are half right. The populist conservatives are "anti-academia" but they are not against objective inquiry and expanding our knowledge.

I don't think so. People like Glenn Beck misquote history, and get it wrong so often that even other conservatives roll their eyes at them. Academics have their opinions, sure, but at least they can formulate an environment.

The populists need more academic discipline if they want to convince people who went to university that there's something to their ideas.

[Moonlight Graham]

The thing with Wikipedia is, it's what its users make it.

Exactly.

Scribblet:

Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public.

Exactly who gives a whoop if it's "more conservative than the American public" (and btw i would highly contest that "6x" number)? It's not meant to be an American wiki written only by Americans. It's written by people across the globe for people across the globe.

This is more just more nonsense from this group of conservatives who feel the need to spin their media to whatever ideological drivel they wish to impart on people or believe themselves.

Wikipedia isn't accurate, because as people have said, it's written/edited by amateurs. If you want the most accurate info, hit the library and read something peer-edited.

[Moonlight Graham]

Oh man, i take it back. This Consverapedia is hilarious! It needs to stay just for the laughs.

Here the first sentence for Barack Obama's page:

Barack Hussein Obama II (aka Barry Soetoro) said to have been born in Honolulu August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the United States, and the first President who is biracial.

"said to have been born"... :lol: I mean, there's a place for that debate, but in the 1st sentence? They totally lay into him throughout his entry page.

Go check out the entries on "abortion" and "ex-homosexuals". This website is the greatest!

Edited March 21, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

The entry for "Socialism" has a picture of Hitler giving the salute right at the very top of the page. Not Marx or Mao or Lenin...Hitler. I LOVE IT!

[bloodyminded]

Even one of the original founders of wikipedia quit in disgust, who said in a radio interview it was full of liberal bias and inaccuracies.

Cite "every one of" them asserting "liberal bias."

Since it's a declarative statement, I think it's ok to wonder if it's actually true.

[Jonsa]

This would be one of the funniest sites on the net, but in truth its pathetic, its scary and a poingnant reminder of the how intellectually bankrupt the american religious right truly is.

Btw I loooveeed the evolution page.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Jonsa