Have you all heard of Conservapedia? It bills itself as “a conservative encyclopedia you can trust,” and it is pretty fascinating. It has a strong pro-Christian, anti-liberal (and especially anti-N.Y. Times) bent, and is just one of several user-run encyclopedias that have taken root in response (or tribute) to Wikipedia. (Here are our previous posts on Wikipedia). These also include Uncyclopedia, a comic site that mocks Wikipedia with entries that contain not a single correct fact.
I hadn’t heard about Conservapedia until reading Alex Beam’s piece in the Boston Globe, which calls it “the online encyclopedia for right-leaning wing nuts.” I am guessing that the folks who write Conservapedia would take issue with this, as least the “wing nut” part; they probably consider Beam, the Globe, and Wikipedia to be the real wing nuts.
Here are Conservapedia’s “Commandments,” or rules for posting. Among the more interesting rules:
Commandment No. 1: Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work.
And, perhaps the best barometer of the site’s aesthetic:
Commandment No. 4: When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). “BCE” and “CE” are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis.
From 1 to 25 of 37 Comments
A.D. is anno domini- in other words, latin. I thought conservatives were English only? After all, why learn the language of the people who killed Christ?
Conservapedia is a joke. Jimmy Wales even states in a Time article
(http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1601491,00.html)
that Wikipedia has a conservative bias. So is Conservapedia like an ESB? Extra Special Bitter to Wiki’s Miller Bitter Beer Face?
— ravager“Darwin’s theory was the specific characteristic of Nazism”
— egretman-Conservapedia 2007
it should also be noted that conservapedia has a US -centric bent to it.
— yoshiIt is interesting that the word “Monica” does not appear in the Bill Clinton article (as of now).
— chimpEverybody knows reality has a liberal bias.
— NathanielLOL, right on the front page: “The liberal New York Times printed this photo of a toothless opponent of the immigration bill as a cheap way of trying to discredit all opponents.”
Thank God they only post things that are true and verifiable :)
— NathanielAlso on the front page, is that John and Yoko passing a joint?
— egretmanMore interesting to me is how journalists seem to have taken Conservapedia at face value as “the” online encyclopedia for conservatives, based on the website’s own PR. My understanding is that it was started as a class project at a private high school. The only people I’ve ever heard mentioning the website are columnists or bloggers taking a “Can you believe this?” tilt. Granted, I don’t listen to Rush or Hugh Hewitt, but are there conservative voices (other than Conservapedia, of course) telling people to avoid Wikipedia? How many people actually use or contribute to Conservapedia? My expectation is that most conservatives who use online encyclopedias are just as likely to use Wikipedia as any other Internet user.
— MichealTheir take on the Miranda warning, from the ‘today in history’ bit:
* 1966 - The Warren Court set free many criminals when it announced a new rule prohibiting the use of many confessions in Miranda v. Arizona.
— elfyThis is entertainment.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Ketchup
http://www.conservapedia.com/Emu
— hoppdawgresponse to yoshi- it’s because Jesus also visited North America (duh)- if you don’t believe me, check out Witnessapedia.com
— frankendufWow, Thanks hoppdawg for pointing to those entries. I think I almost got fired for laughing so hard…
I wonder which universities allow students to use conservapedia as a reference?
— TfunkHoppdawg, those links are the funniest things I’ve seen online in a while.
Who would’ve thought ketchup was guilty of not only partisan politics, but funding abortion, terrorism, homosexuality and communism. I must immediately switch to mustard, since this -pedia is the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
— LiteraryMonkeyThey LOVE the Boston Globe article. See here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Boston_Globe_article
— palmdMy sense is that religious conservatives are beginning to slink back to the shadows where they were before Karl Rove released them to give us the “best president in the history of the world”.
A sort of “I’m taking my ketchup and going home” kind of thing.
— egretman…or until the second coming and god releases 144,000 to heaven and the rest of us have to suffer untold agonies and I-told-you-so’s.
— egretmanWell, after that scary comment, Im gonna take Pascal’s Wager…see ya in church!
— palmdWait, Im Jewish…I guess ill see you in shul.
— palmdEveryone does realize Conservapedia is a humor site, making fun of conservatives, right? Kind of like how The Colbert Report isn’t really a conservative TV show…
— kipHad to check this out, and of course make some changes… It took all of 30 seconds for another user to block my ability to edit. Apparently, I’m a vandal. What really struck me, though, is that there are a good number of pages that are not editable. The evolution page, for example, is complete BS, but it is locked. Too bad, I was hoping to help educate the ignorant masses…
— SnydsKind of like how The Colbert Report isn’t really a conservative TV show…
If you have a beef against The Colbert Report why don’t you just spill it?
— egretmanAs much as we would like it to be parody, a la http://www.blogs4brownback.com, it is the real deal. I’ve spoken with a lot of the folks on the site…they are dead serious.
— palmdKip: Everyone does realize Conservapedia is a humor site, making fun of conservatives, right?
As much as I wish that were true, this is clearly not a parody. There are literally thousands of pages of topics, and thousands more pages of discussion and history of revisions showing that even if it had originated as a parody, it is now truly what it claims to be: a white, Protestant, American, Young Earth Creationist version of an encyclopedia.
The Onion is a parody — it has a nationwide professional writing staff and has been in publication for over a decade and doesn’t have as many articles as Conservapedia does. This would be the single most elaborate parody in human history if it were one.
— NathanielThe Onion is a parody
Is it? Or is it only one version of events in a multiverse of infinite dimensions? And if there is an infinite number of dimensions, doesn’t that mean one of them would have produce The Onion and it would pop out through a rift into this dimension?
I mean…it could happen.
— egretmanSince I work for the Onion, I’m pretty sure we’re doing a parody. Or all these meetings have taken a wrong turn somewhere :)
— Nathaniel