NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your thoughts on this 'trustworthy' encyclopedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)?

Wikipedia's article on it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia)

It's so last year.

It could be a little biased to the right? :rolleyes: Do I win the taco?

I think it's Fair and Balanced.

Okay, I can't say that with a straight face.

I do not see the point. Sure, I can see why some people would argue other online pedias have an anti-conservative bias and that the other side should be said - but I do not see how creating a site filled with false statements fullfills that goal. It in fact only serves to increase the bias against conservatives - adding "silly liars" to it.

Surely that cannot be their intention ?

They believe something is biased, so they go out and make something biased. Brilliant, Holmes!

They say Wiki is liberal. Guess reality has a "liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias." :p

Hilarious, I thought.

I liked the part of "Court Ends Bible Distribution in School,Guess who sued for that ruling? The ACLU, of course."

It turns out that the ACLU supports civil liberties.:rolleyes:

They believe something is biased, so they go out and make something biased.

Biased would be ok. But this site is not biased, it is describing an alternate reality - even though this reality has enough areas where they could score.

Is it still around? I wonder what it has to say on the various presidential candidates.

I don't get it. Why do they bother? If they think Wiki is biased, they should provide (with evidence) views on it in a balanced way, not by parading 'facts' they believe in. They just make themselves look more idiotic than they already are.

I don't get it. Why do they bother? If they think Wiki is biased, they should provide (with evidence) views on it in a balanced way, not by parading 'facts' they believe in. They just make themselves look more idiotic than they already are.

They don't actually want wikipedia to be accurate, they want it to say what they want it to say. Unfortunately, wikipedia wouldn't play ball, so they went and made their own encyclopaedia, where they can all have a great big circle jerk about how awesome it is to be conservative and how much those filthy liberals suck.

why does the logo have the US flag on it :confused:

*looks up dirty words*

edit: oh no my mom just walked in whilst I was looking at Hillary Clinton's page

This baisically sums up why conservapedia even exists in the first place:

Most visited pages on Conservapedia:
1) Homosexuality ‎(2,263,320 views)
2)Teen Homosexuality ‎(344,878 views)
3) Homosexual Agenda ‎(313,967 views)
4) Homosexuality and Anal Cancer ‎(296,655 views)
5) Arguments Against Homosexuality ‎(278,206 views)
6) Wikipedia ‎(265,992 views)
7) Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ‎(252,792 views)
8) Ex-homosexuals ‎(247,258 views)
9) Homosexuality and Choice ‎(246,063 views)
10) Theory of Evolution ‎(235,081 views)

why does the logo have the US flag on it :confused:

*looks up dirty words*

because anything without an american flag on it is liberal-biased.

SNIP

:D you could say its full of homosexuals

because anything without an american flag on it is liberal-biased.

this explains the moon landing

They don't actually want wikipedia to be accurate, they want it to say what they want it to say. Unfortunately, wikipedia wouldn't play ball, so they went and made their own encyclopaedia, where they can all have a great big circle jerk about how awesome it is to be conservative and how much those filthy liberals suck.

This is true. Sadly.

Hehe, they say its racist to use both american and british spelling. Ignoring the fact that most english speakers use the latter.

SNIP

some people just can't be helped :(

I feel sorry for the home school kids who have to learn this trollop

Rubbish and ridiculously biased. Gives Americans a bad name and exhibits those who actually do fit the Bible-thumping fundamentalist Manifest Destiny proponent stereotype.

I was mainly on there for the global warming article - it was briefly unlocked at my request, I made it a bit less biased, extreme and accusatory and it was quite quickly butchered back to the only slightly improved morass it is now, constantly deriding the climate 'alarmists' and Al Gore and with only the tiniest amount of scientific understanding in it.
Before, it did all that minus the understanding, and with an overabundance of insulting pictures.

I tried editing an article on climate cycles to make it less extreme - it had been written by, I assume, an extremely annoyed proponent of AGW theory who had to vent somewhere, thus making it incredibly biased. I made it slightly less biased, though still supporting the scientific opinion, and then who comes along but a Young-Earth Creationist editing it to remove any reference to the climate cycles which lasted hundreds of millennia - because that timespan is more than the six thousand years the Earth has apparently existed. :rolleyes:

some people just can't be helped :(

I feel sorry for the home school kids who have to learn this trollop

I feel sorry for the ones who feel proud that they were home-schooled.
It's passing on stupidity. Via Chinese Whispers. Over a bad VOIP connection.

I feel sorry for the ones who feel proud that they were home-schooled.
It's passing on stupidity. Via Chinese Whispers. Over a bad VOIP connection.

makes you wonder where all the home schooled kids gets jobs

makes you wonder where all the home schooled kids gets jobs

I suspect I know...

>.>
<.<

*looks at White House*

The way I see it, conservapedia is only alive today because normal people seem to be fascinated by its utter stupidity, so they post threads like this on forums and keep talking about how bad conservapedia is, thus unwittingly spreading word about it, giving it more page hits and making it more popular.

Just ignore it already!

How can anyone hate Conservapedia? It has immense comedic value.

How can anyone hate Conservapedia? It has immense comedic value.

It is meant to be used as an educational tool for kids. Quite a few articles were also written by kids who honestly believe the drivel they wrote.

For some strange reason I have trouble finding that funny.

Anarchopedia FTW! (http://eng.anarchopedia.org/Main_Page)

http://jsoda.blogfodder.net/files/hunting%20for%20liberals.gif

It is meant to be used as an educational tool for kids. Quite a few articles were also written by kids who honestly believe the drivel they wrote.

For some strange reason I have trouble finding that funny.

So its funny and disturbing at the same time.
You're right though, it is very scary that people actually believe some (i.e. any) of the crap on there.

I find it quite entertaining - especially the cases of vandalism that the Conservapedia folks don't catch. For example, this was the Conservapedia article on "patriotism" as of February 24, 2006, and the log explained that this was the version with the "liberal humor" removed:

"Patriotism, or love of country, is the highest American virtue. Patriotism means unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the Leader of the country. The opposite of patriotism, treason, is the act of questioning, criticizing or voting against the Leader.

Patriotism comes from the Latin. An ancient Latino poet wrote "Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori", which means "It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die"[1]."

If that's not comedic gold, I don't know what is. :D

I kinda like what the founder said about wikipedia, and would use it as a descriptor for myself:

"six times more liberal than the American public"

I can't decide whether to despise the site or laugh at it. This, naturally, is very vexing. I prefer to simply ignore it.

I find it quite hilarious that they reckon that Fred Phelps is a leftist who is criticised by Conservatives but only "some" liberals.

But yeah, eugh.

I find it quite entertaining - especially the cases of vandalism that the Conservapedia folks don't catch. For example, this was the Conservapedia article on "patriotism" as of February 24, 2006, and the log explained that this was the version with the "liberal humor" removed:

"Patriotism, or love of country, is the highest American virtue. Patriotism means unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the Leader of the country. The opposite of patriotism, treason, is the act of questioning, criticizing or voting against the Leader.

Patriotism comes from the Latin. An ancient Latino poet wrote "Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori", which means "It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die"[1]."

If that's not comedic gold, I don't know what is. :D

Ahahahahaha *gasp*.... hahaha! That's awesome:D

I find it quite entertaining - especially the cases of vandalism that the Conservapedia folks don't catch. For example, this was the Conservapedia article on "patriotism" as of February 24, 2006, and the log explained that this was the version with the "liberal humor" removed:

"Patriotism, or love of country, is the highest American virtue. Patriotism means unquestioning obedience and loyalty to the Leader of the country. The opposite of patriotism, treason, is the act of questioning, criticizing or voting against the Leader.

Patriotism comes from the Latin. An ancient Latino poet wrote "Dulce et decorum est pro Patria mori", which means "It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die"[1]."

If that's not comedic gold, I don't know what is. :D

Hmmm, 25 lashes for incorrect translation of a deponent present infinitive, 5 for capitalising nouns which aren't names and 10 for translating decorum as anything other than "proper".
Apparently this guy Horace was, as described, from Latin America?


:gundge:

I didn't read the whole thread, but the statistics (http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics)are hilarious too.

I think it's Fair and Balanced.

Okay, I can't say that with a straight face.
But you *did* print it without typos! Kudos!

This baisically sums up why conservapedia even exists in the first place:

Most visited pages on Conservapedia:
1) Homosexuality ‎(2,263,320 views)
2)Teen Homosexuality ‎(344,878 views)
3) Homosexual Agenda ‎(313,967 views)
4) Homosexuality and Anal Cancer ‎(296,655 views)
5) Arguments Against Homosexuality ‎(278,206 views)
6) Wikipedia ‎(265,992 views)
7) Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ‎(252,792 views)
8) Ex-homosexuals ‎(247,258 views)
9) Homosexuality and Choice ‎(246,063 views)
10) Theory of Evolution ‎(235,081 views)

Those homosexuals sure are popular with them thar Conservatives...

Those homosexuals sure are popular with them thar Conservatives...

*FLORT*
Conservapedia will facilitate a lot of people coming to understand their true selves, perhaps exit their closets.
And, this is a *great* statistic. :D

Ahahahahaha *gasp*.... hahaha! That's awesome:D

I know! By the time I get to the "ancient Latino poet" I'm already giggling uncontrollably, and then "it is sweet and decorative" just kills me utterly. :p

They're all closets. They just happen to come out in airport bathrooms, if I recall correctly.
http://www.sivacracy.net/archives/5-15-2006%20-%20George%20Michael%20-%20header.jpg

Those homosexuals sure are popular with them thar Conservatives...

They're all closets. They just happen to come out in airport bathrooms, if I recall correctly.

This baisically sums up why conservapedia even exists in the first place:

Most visited pages on Conservapedia:
1) Homosexuality ‎(2,263,320 views)
2)Teen Homosexuality ‎(344,878 views)
3) Homosexual Agenda ‎(313,967 views)
4) Homosexuality and Anal Cancer ‎(296,655 views)
5) Arguments Against Homosexuality ‎(278,206 views)
6) Wikipedia ‎(265,992 views)
7) Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ‎(252,792 views)
8) Ex-homosexuals ‎(247,258 views)
9) Homosexuality and Choice ‎(246,063 views)
10) Theory of Evolution ‎(235,081 views)

Seriously!?! What is it with conservatives and sex?... I guess when your not getting it...

In November 2007, Conservapedia's homosexuality pages were listed as the most visited on the site, although this was thought to be the result of an automated click bot attack

They are not as obsessed as they seem.

Seriously!?! What is it with conservatives and sex?... I guess when your not getting it...

There's a bit of urban wisdom that states that the less sex one has, the more one talks about it. It's usually used to reason that people who never shut up about sex are desperately horny virgins.

There's a bit of urban wisdom that states that the less sex one has, the more one talks about it. It's usually used to reason that people who never shut up about sex are desperately horny virgins.
It explains a lot of Victorian-era soft porn lit, too.
BTW - been to the creationist thread of late?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13366544&postcount=1653

What are your thoughts on this 'trustworthy' encyclopedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page)?

Wikipedia's article on it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia)

It's a joke. It says in its own mission statement, though not in these words, that its purpose is to allow people with a bad education to avoid facing reality that would make them aware that they are wrong.

In addition to being just plain wrong, it's also very stupid. For example it accused wikipedia of being "anti-intellectual" because it has entries on non-academic topics like the word "duh." But that's not what anti-intellectual means. Anti intellectual means dismissing the opinions of the well educated in favor of the opinions of certain cultural demographics whose opinions are not grounded in science but on cultural bias. Which is of course what Conservapedia is.