Conservative rival to wikipedia

Remove all ads!

Yes, that happened here in the Woodlands just a few years back. A local "Christian" group went into a county board meeting and complained about some small Renaissance replicas that adorned a local shopping center. They put up such a fuss that the local officials ordered fig leaves to be put onto the statues, just to "shut them up," as county officials explained later to the rest of the community, who thought the whole thing was rather silly.

 

In the conservapedia entry on genetics:

Wow, that was helpful, let me go write my Uni essay with that...

Where as the Wikipedia article for it is over 2,000 words.

Also, i just looked up the source that they get most of their biology info from. Funnily enough, it is a book written by a creationist, so will obviously have a fair and un-opinionated view on every aspect of biology

 

After taking a look at conservapedia I strongly doubt that I would go there for research. However I am very happy to know about. This way if Google brings up a reference to it I know to not waste my time.

 

They have another page about evolution - a better one:

It's just a Theory

Not as good as this though:
Agenda

Edit:

As an interesting comparison:
Wikipedia and our new friends about Jesus

Edit 2:

They don't have a page about sex, true. However there is one about procreation:

Procreation is a holy act between a married man and woman. Its purpose it to further the races of God's children. Procreation is a natural act that is the act that occurs when a marriage is consummated. Abortion is the act of undoing the procreation and in doing so, one is insulting God directly.

That's it. In its entirety.

 

Gee, so nice to know that there is an unbiased encyclopedia on the Internet. (Sarcasm intended)

 

And then there was the guy who complained about Christmas trees at the airport, the Jewish guy who complained about a place to pray at the airport, and people not being able to say "Merry Chistmas" - the list can go on and on with this kind of nonsense...it seems everyone's religion is offended by someone else's religion.

But in this instance we were speaking of a small group imposing their own moral standard on the rest of the community. The same group in the Woodlands then went on to attempt to ban books at the community library that they claimed did not meet their "Christian standards." Of course, this nonsense goes on all the time as well in a lot of other places.

 

Strange, you'd think that WikiChristian would have been adequate enough. Whereas Conservapedia was created in 2006, WikiChristian was created in 2004. How many wiki's are there now anyway?

 

lol, this is too funny. [sarcasm]And as a fundamental agnostic I am offended by your theistic and atheistic views... all of them. I shall sue for all theist and atheist images to be removed from public view.[/sarcasm]

 

I'm going to guess that the article on Vagina was handled irreverently, and that the "information" was insensitive or obscene as opposed to factually correct. I believe this is more to discourage crude jokes than to silence facts.

Further, if anyone can edit Wikipedia to say what they want it to say, then what is to say that anything there is accurate? How do they ensure that someone who wrote the article on evolution actually knows what they're talking about? And what if the real facts are more complicated, and thus the thing gets "dumbed down" repeatedly, losing accuracy in the process.

And that's one other thing that makes me laugh. You get on religion for silencing those that question it, but why was the stuff questioning evolution removed from the article on evolution? Ripping something off from us Christians and not giving us credit? Or did you accuse us of something then think it was a pretty good idea...

Sure, it does have a political bias, but at least they're honest about it. They try to get people to be honest and accurate with their posting, rather than allowing people to post whatever they want about a topic at hand.

 

I just looked up N.Ireland...

The person that updated this article yesterday, must have been in a coma for the last 5 years

[ March 15, 2007, 10:18: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

wikipedia is constantly policed by its owners and of cause by its users, if you find something incorrect you can either logon (if you have an account and correct it) or you can repport it.

for instance, right after the burrat movie , burrat (or however you spell it) was listed as kazhakstans president and so one, for one day, then the entry on Kazhakstan was closed and corected.

Secondly if you look at Wikipedia, most articles as tons of references to all kinds of literature and other internet sites.

thirdly wikipedia has been tested several times and has been found to a fault margin of less then 10%, thats lower then a fair bit of physical ensyclopedias.

that said, as a student of history, i know i can never list wikipedia as a source in an assignment, because sites on the internet seldom listens the author, but thats a problem with all internet sites.

 

Gnarff,
by creating conservapedia they make the accusation that Wiki is biased.

That is, however, mostly untrue. Most of their criticism rotates about Wiki's unwillingness to accept their faith based stuff in a basically scientific summary, on evolution for instance. However, there is a pretty lengthy and exaustive page about creationism. Creationism is also referred to in the evolution article.

That means only that Wiki puts things in the right place.

It's just that the conservapedia folks couldn't get over the Holy Bible not to be referred as a scientific source to in the evolution entry - where it doesn't belong - despite their persistent efforts.

That they interpreted that as bias only means they don't have a clue what a scientific, empirical approach is ... And I bet they don't care.
Every opinion is equally valid, and so they feel they're entitled to be mentioned equally with 'godless' science ... One can predict one of their arguments to be that when compared to science, the Holy Bible, the Word of The Lord, carries more weight, and thus ought to be granted priority. Fighting Wiki's elusive 'bias' they are on a quixotian quest. I pity everyone who has to face their wrath. In their indignant fervor they must be a real pest.

 

The whole idea is just stupid. Why bother to create something that doesn't really tell you anything?

 

The two most important facts about rock music:

Indeed , that's all I needed to know.

Wait... there isn't an article about Stairway to Heaven's satanic backward messages?

 

This Can't be true

While I clicked « random page » on this witty 'lil site I end up with this

Here's the WHOLE page

WTF?!

 

I actually feel sorry for these people. Not that I truly expected anything, but they obviously copied the definition of "neuron" out of a textbook. And it's even a good textbook, but the "definition" is a paragraph. On wiki I can find entries on incredibly obscure cancer treatments.

I think they really want to be taken seriously, but are simply too understafffed and (to be honest) crazy.