Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Wikipedia Bad - Conservapedia Good

 
Did you know that Wikipedia was anti-Christian and (gasp!) anti-American? Next thing they'll be telling us that it favors gays, drugs, and premarital sex. Not to worry. Help is at hand.
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. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".
We can all sleep better now, especially us furriners. Now we know where to go to learn about the real America.

11 comments:

  1. The great things about wikis is that we can all edit them. So I first fixed up their entry on genes, and then did a quick patch-up of the one on the Theory of Evolution.

    Let's drive them crazy with our edits.

    ReplyDelete
  2. [Let's drive them crazy with our edits.]

    *evil grin*

    I'm all for it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, the approach of the commentors above might be thought of as guerrilla approach, or nickle-an'-diming them to death.
    I think we need to take a strategic look at what these dangerous folks are really up to. Chris Hedges argues in his 2006 book, "American Fascists," that the anti-science forces want much more than to promote their own, "alternative" discourse. They want to abolish discourse itself, and even the possibility of discourse.
    A conservative wiki is not just a single, random shot in the "culture wars" in the U.S., but a salvo in a continuing campaign whose theaters are Washington, the 50 state capitols, the entire judiciary, and corporate boardrooms. They have already made great headway.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I went over and had a look and I must say, I am deeply saddened by this project. Why must there be a conservative version of the truth? The citations of bias in Wikipedia are preposterous. Their most serious accusation is that Wikipedia uses "CE" to date events rather than "AD". They also complain that Wikipedia gives no credit to the Church for the Renaissance. Finally, they offer a number of piddling complaints about particular entries. Their complaints seem pathetic to me.

    I have a suggestion: rather than take the destructive approach of attempting to sabotage Conservapedia, why doesn't everybody who objects to Conservapedia find an article in Wikipedia that needs improvement and contribute some time to helping make it better? Let's bury them in excellence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let's not give what is effectively a project by a bunch of school (homeskooled, at that) kids more prominence than it deserves. After all, Wikipedia deleted their article on Conservapedia due to it simply being "not notable".

    ReplyDelete
  6. quote(was in http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page 22.feb.2007):

    February 2
    "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions."

    F*cking "notable"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is it sad that I have a difficult time telling the difference between conservapedia and wikiality? The only thing I can use to discern the two is the lack of OHL hockey content on conservapedia.

    Garrett

    ReplyDelete
  8. the one about evolution might have been patched up at one point but by jimeny it's awful now. Oh how I am happy not to be a Yank!

    Louis

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think it's a major convenience that a "conservative" political view apparently requires the acceptance of bad science. It makes my electoral decisions much easier.

    ReplyDelete