NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently, some people feel wikipedia.org (a site that can be edited by anyone) is too liberal, and so a group has created "conservapedia.org," written in the same format as wikipedia, only with conservative bias. Note that I use the word "bias" not because I disagree with it, but because this site does not function as an objective encyclopedia. For example, try typing in

1. Abortion
2. Terri Schiavo
3. Women
4. Ann Coulter

Apparently, some people feel wikipedia.org (a site that can be edited by anyone) is too liberal, and so a group has created "conservapedia.org," written in the same format as wikipedia, only with conservative bias. Note that I use the word "bias" not because I disagree with it, but because this site does not function as an objective encyclopedia. For example, try typing in

1. Abortion
2. Terri Schiavo
3. Women
4. Ann Coulter

Old news.

We know, we know. It's alright though, it's interesting stuff.

I have an account there, but I haven't figured out what I am going to do with it yet......still waiting for something glorious, because whatever it is will probably get me deleted.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

I prefer Scotipedia. An online source with a Scottish point of view. If it is not Scottish, it's crap.

I have an account there, but I haven't figured out what I am going to do with it yet......still waiting for something glorious, because whatever it is will probably get me deleted.

I made an account to correct (and pull some of the blatant bias out of) the stem cell descriptions. I got deleted pretty quickly.

This prompted my husband to start an account, pick a random topic, and replace it with "I love boobies!" until he got deleted. He then reset his IP and tried again. On the third time, having been deleted by the same mod both times, he replaced "I love boobies," with, "[mod name], I love you man. You're so cool." We were wondering how long it would take him to get our entire ISP banned, but got bored way too quickly to try.

I made an account to correct (and pull some of the blatant bias out of) the stem cell descriptions. I got deleted pretty quickly.

This prompted my husband to start an account, pick a random topic, and replace it with "I love boobies!" until he got deleted. He then reset his IP and tried again. On the third time, having been deleted by the same mod both times, he replaced "I love boobies," with, "[mod name], I love you man. You're so cool." We were wondering how long it would take him to get our entire ISP banned, but got bored way too quickly to try.

That sounds pointless, but incredibly amusing.

I used to haunt the talk pages there, on occasion.

That sounds pointless, but incredibly amusing.

Well, being deleted because the truth apparently has a liberal bias is pretty pointless. So my husband decided to amuse himself by being even more pointless. =)

Well, being deleted because the truth apparently has a liberal bias is pretty pointless. So my husband decided to amuse himself by being even more pointless. =)

Well, if "I love boobies!" is the truth, then where is the problem? :p

Well, if "I love boobies!" is the truth, then where is the problem? :p

I don't think they deleted him for a "liberal bias". I think he got deleted for "vandalism". Actually though, so did I, it was just "liberal bias vandalism". Or something.

I have an account there, but I haven't figured out what I am going to do with it yet......still waiting for something glorious, because whatever it is will probably get me deleted.

Yea, I have one too, but I can't decide what to do with it that would be interesting enough before getting deleted.

I hate to say it, but Conservapedia is getting marginally better. For instance, some of the articles now do not read as though they were written by eight year olds. And the articles might be a bit less biased.

Also, I think about 75% of the users of Conservapedia are non-American non-Conservatives, so that's probably having its effects. :p

Yea, I have one too, but I can't decide what to do with it that would be interesting enough before getting deleted.

"I love Darwin boobies!" :D

I edited the article on feminism so instead of reading:

During the administration of Bill Clinton these latter-day feminists overlooked President Clinton's apparently womanizing behavior in order to focus upon his attempts to procure federal funding for several of their causes.

It read:

During the administration of Bill Clinton these latter-day feminists overlooked President Clinton's apparently womanizing behavior in order to focus upon his attempts to procure federal funding for several of their causes. Apparently they decided equal rights for woman was more important than what the president does in his spare time.

I'm guessing my account was deleted.

"That's right, they're claiming you, the user, has a liberal bias!"
-Lewis Black

I'm guessing my account was deleted.

Yeah, that's what happened, Dudukain.

I prefer Scotipedia. An online source with a Scottish point of view. If it is not Scottish, it's crap.

I'm reading it now. As a bona fide Scot, I have to say, what the fuck? I don't understand 90% of what's written there! The spelling rules are too inconsistent! They're trying to spell in their local dialects, and considering they're all so different it's a complete mess. Also, a lot of words have deliberately been mangled just to make them seem less English, even though the Scottish pronunciation isn't all that different in the first place. For example, they've rendered "culture" as "cultur" even though we pronounce it "culture" like anyone else. Morons. Linguistically retarded morons.

I'm reading it now. As a bona fide Scot, I have to say, what the fuck? I don't understand 90% of what's written there! The spelling rules are too inconsistent! They're trying to spell in their local dialects, and considering they're all so different it's a complete mess. Also, a lot of words have deliberately been mangled just to make them seem less English, even though the Scottish pronunciation isn't all that different in the first place. For example, they've rendered "culture" as "cultur" even though we pronounce it "culture" like anyone else. Morons. Linguistically retarded morons.

Personally, I think it's quite insulting. I mean, I would understand if they were trying to write it in actual Scots language, but they're just using thier own local version of mangled English.

EDIT: Also, why is it that mainstream American conservatives are made out as so stubborn, over the top, and utterly ridiculous? I read conservative blogs, and pet projects like conservapedia, and it seems like they are forcing themselves to believe thier own rubbish, to attempt to brainwash themselves into believing thier own opinions are fact.

But I know many conservatives are not like this. I have a profound respect for many conservatives. Andalucaie is a prominent conservative on this forum, and I respect him. My favourite school teacher is a British Conservative.

But Oh My God, I just don't believe this. I'd like to know what conservative members of the forum think about this.

Personally, I think it's quite insulting. I mean, I would understand if they were trying to write it in actual Scots language, but they're just using thier own local version of mangled English.

Kind of like Conservapedia!

Yeah, that's what happened, Dudukain.

Really? Does it display recently banned users or something?

Apparently, some people feel wikipedia.org (a site that can be edited by anyone) is too liberal, and so a group has created "conservapedia.org," written in the same format as wikipedia, only with conservative bias. Note that I use the word "bias" not because I disagree with it, but because this site does not function as an objective encyclopedia. For example, try typing in

1. Abortion
2. Terri Schiavo
3. Women
4. Ann Coulter
The problem with this is that it assumes conservatives read.
But seriously, I can see why people would want to create an alternative to Wikipedia, there is probably a liberal bias. It is, after all, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and if this forum is any indication of the rest of Internet users, it's more liberal than conservative. What I don't understand is why you would then create a site with a explicit conservative bias. It seems to be saying that there is a liberal (wrong) way and a conservative (right) version of the facts, instead of there being facts (right) that are interpreted differently by liberals and conservatives (right and wrong to different degrees).

Ha! Check this out:

Anti-Flag: This article does not have any sources, is about a very unconservative topic, using the langauge of liberials (e.g., "pro-choice") and otherwise seems intended to be against the principals of a conservative encyclopedia.

It's on the "deletion policy" page.

The other great one is the guy who suggested they need to delete the article on the democratic party for not being about a conservative topic.

The other great one is the guy who suggested they need to delete the article on the democratic party for not being about a conservative topic.
That would actually make sense, if it was an objective encyclopedia dedicated to conservative topics, just like the Star Wars version of Wikipedia is dedicated to Star War topics. Instead, they've created just a different alternative to objective encyclopedias, this one conservative.

"The language of liberals"! I love it! :D:rolleyes::p

I also remember "Raptor Jesus" being on the deletion page…

Really? Does it display recently banned users or something?

That's just what I thought. But then it came to me that your user page could just be unmade. Try logging in.

I'm reading it now. As a bona fide Scot, I have to say, what the fuck? I don't understand 90% of what's written there! The spelling rules are too inconsistent! They're trying to spell in their local dialects, and considering they're all so different it's a complete mess. Also, a lot of words have deliberately been mangled just to make them seem less English, even though the Scottish pronunciation isn't all that different in the first place. For example, they've rendered "culture" as "cultur" even though we pronounce it "culture" like anyone else. Morons. Linguistically retarded morons.

I... uh...

whoa....

.....

scotipedia....

...it exists...

I'm reading it now. As a bona fide Scot, I have to say, what the fuck? I don't understand 90% of what's written there! The spelling rules are too inconsistent! They're trying to spell in their local dialects, and considering they're all so different it's a complete mess. Also, a lot of words have deliberately been mangled just to make them seem less English, even though the Scottish pronunciation isn't all that different in the first place. For example, they've rendered "culture" as "cultur" even though we pronounce it "culture" like anyone else. Morons. Linguistically retarded morons.

These guys spell it like it sounds. I'll use this as a reference for my bad Scottish impersonations. (Don't mean to offend)

That's just what I thought. But then it came to me that your user page could just be unmade. Try logging in.

Yup. I'm still around.

These guys spell it like it sounds. I'll use this as a reference for my bad Scottish impersonations. (Don't mean to offend)

No, they don't. No Scottish dialect sounds like that.

No, they don't. No Scottish dialect sounds like that.

Oh.

I... uh...

whoa....

.....

scotipedia....

...it exists...

Kinda sucks when your parodies are taken over by reality before you even come up with them, no?

Yup. I'm still around.

My bad.

The Mindset - Is this (http://www.scots-online.org/) real Scots?

I edited the article on feminism so instead of reading:



It read:



I'm guessing my account was deleted.

"That's right, they're claiming you, the user, has a liberal bias!"
-Lewis Black

Ooooh, scarey-darey. Jus wait 'til you tell the guys in the Anarchist League...

My bad.

The Mindset - Is this (http://www.scots-online.org/) real Scots?

Yes, that's a great deal closer.

Senor Schafly banned me after only one offense; mentioning Saint Ronald of Reagan's supposed Old Timer's.

Or it was the Family Guy reference. "Reagan Smash!"

They violated their own made up commandments. Art imitates life, eh? :rolleyes:

EDIT: Oh, I forgot, this was back when it first started. As I told my mother while watching TDS, "Oh, I was already banned from their months ago. I'm a leftist subversive, apparently."

"The language of liberals"! I love it! :D:rolleyes::p

I also remember "Raptor Jesus" being on the deletion page…

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/raptorjesus-36752.jpg

"Ann Hart Coulter (b. 1961) is an attorney, legal affairs correspondent, and social commentator who is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics. She has written five bestselling American books and as U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner observed is one of America's top public intellectuals.[1] Defenders of the status quo claim she exaggerates the means and methods of the progressive movement in the United States. Coulter says liberals can't tolerate dissent."

So, basically, American conservatives are so dumb they don't even realise that they're the establishment?

No wonder this country is so fucked up.

"Ann Hart Coulter (b. 1961) is an attorney, legal affairs correspondent, and social commentator who is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics. She has written five bestselling American books and as U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner observed is one of America's top public intellectuals.[1] Defenders of the status quo claim she exaggerates the means and methods of the progressive movement in the United States. Coulter says liberals can't tolerate dissent."

So, basically, American conservatives are so dumb they don't even realise that they're the establishment?

No wonder this country is so fucked up.

Quick! Someone edit in shemale in between attorney and LAC!

Quick! Someone edit in shemale in between attorney and LAC!Someone already had the idea, apparently - page's blocked from editing.

On a more serious note, looking at the talk pages, it's safe to say that it's a nutjob page - plenty of people (Conservatives, one supposes, given that they bother with the discussion pages at all) do not quite seem to agree with what the nutjobs are writing, and are presumably leaving in horror while bitching about the bad PR conservapedia is giving them.

And boy, bad PR isn't even starting to describe it o.o

What, did they reopen registration?

I prefer Scotipedia. An online source with a Scottish point of view. If it is not Scottish, it's crap.

As a Scotsman, I am feeling deep burning shame...:eek:

A few random conservitive things....

...the military has successfully effected regime changes in those countries

I wouldn't say the war is lost or won. I wonder what would happen if you edited the George W. Bush article wihtout a "liberal bias" and simply put the measure of sucess in the war is disputed.

Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006. Corporations show profits growing by double digits growth. Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007. Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.

Well, there is so much here. All though these facts aren't completely wrong, they aren't the whole truth. I'll point out especially the minimum wage part towards the end.

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989, shortly after the left lost the Cold War. So possibly the new leftist issue became global warming

Communists started the "myth"(according to them global warming simply isn't true yet they don't seem to quote any scientists) of global warming. DAMN YOU COMMIES!!!!!!!

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.9 °F over the second half of the 20th Century,[Citation Needed].

My personal favorite because even though it's conservipedia under the temperature rise it still says citation needed. Of course the mods could have felt .9 degrees was too much and slapped it on. Either way, do you see what I'm driving at?

An article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved

I'm just curious because I thought some conservitives believed in evolution. I really wonder what would happen if you gave it an evolution "bias"(real scientific facts on evolution that prove it. )

A brief comparison....

George W. Bush,Wikipedia--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w_bush
George W. Bush,Conservapedia---http://www.conservapedia.com/George_W._Bush

Global Warming,wikipedia--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Global Warming, conservapedia--- http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming

NOTE THE CHARTS AND CITATIONS ON WIKI


Evolution,wikipedia--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Evolution,conservapedia--- http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

When I mentioned conservapedia to someone just now they told me to think for myself.

The stupidest thing I've seen on this site so far is that the Democrats handed out anti-semetic pamphlets at a 2005 convention. I mean really c'mon who dumb can you get. I understand that ther is a conservitive bias but really that's just sillyness,plain and simple.

Ooooh, scarey-darey. Jus wait 'til you tell the guys in the Anarchist League...

I thought it was vaguely funny. It's called having a subtle sense of humor.

In the interests of less subtle edits, somebody needs to edit the article on fetuses and add a "recipes" section.

I have an account there, but I haven't figured out what I am going to do with it yet......still waiting for something glorious, because whatever it is will probably get me deleted.
Can you maybe before doing something glorious add the right name of the Linkspartei? what I mean is: in http://www.conservapedia.com/Germany#Political_Parties change "The Left Party - far left, partly communist" to "The Left Party (Linkspartei) - far left, partly communist"

Methinks somebody's taking the Michael:

It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars, such as Serge Gainsbourg, Immanuel Kant, and Francois Nique LaMer.

...


In March 2003, France was one of over a hundred nations that did not participate in the alliance that liberated Iraq, with its aim of removing the Baathist regime of the dictator Saddam Hussein, though France had committed substantial forces to the First Gulf War.

Wait...wasn't Immaneul Kant German? In fact I don't think he even left the area in Germany where he was born once in his life.