An alternative universe?

by Richard on February 27, 2007

Our friend Bene Diction points us to Conservapedia, a new wiki intended to challenge what it sees as anti-Christian anti-American 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”.

Read it, and find yourself in the Outer Limits…

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }


Chris 02.27.07 at 12:57 pm

Wow, that’s scary… Their grudge against Wikipedia seems to be a whole series of minor (e.g. Anglophilia in spelling) and very specific (e.g. Vaccinations) grudges somehow woven together to make a conspiracy. I’m always impressed by the ability of some Conservative Christians to portray themselves as a persecuted minority…


Wood 02.27.07 at 1:06 pm

A world where “balance” is defined by “only reading the stuff I agree with” is pretty damn scary.


Patrik 02.27.07 at 3:35 pm

No doubt merely a first step towards creating “conservenet”.


Mark Byron 02.27.07 at 5:19 pm

The screening software that gets used in a number of places creates a “conservative” environment, but often in the sence of not touching on hot topics rather than a right-wing bias. For instance, the filters at the college I taught at in the early 00s would screen out any Blogspot site, including my own blog; I had to get special permission to read my own blog at work.

Even in the Blogosphere, we tend to segregate ourselves, reading the folks we agree with. That’s why I like to read civilized folks of the left, like the denizens here, that give me an alternatve take on things without f-bombing me to death.


DH 02.27.07 at 8:31 pm

Well, by the very definition of wikipedia we know it is majority rule. If a majority think something than that is what it is. This seems to go against the very nature of what an Encyclopedia is which is no bias whatsoever. While I’m not a 100% fan of Conservapedia even if I agree with what they say. I can still understand how and why people would come up with or support something like Conservapedia. No one is saying there shouldn’t be wikipedia or the internet but it is a way for people to have another outlet for information. If one truly wants balance go to the library and get a great big Encyclopedia and read it. Otherwise, you are going to have these sort of things Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia. This also has more to do with the tone of writing in Wikipedia in some of the respective posts rather than just the content. Many times there is an aire of condescention that is just not reflected in original Encyclopedia’s.


BruceA 02.27.07 at 10:13 pm

DH -
Well, by the very definition of wikipedia we know it is majority rule.

Wrong. By definition, Wikipedia aims to present a neutral point of view. This means that

where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

But because Wikipedia is, by definition, forever a work in progress, many articles haven’t yet achieved a neutral point of view. If you object to the tone of an article, you are always free to edit it.


DH 02.27.07 at 10:21 pm

That is why I don’t like Wikipedia that much (even though I look at it once in a while). The “work in progress” is the part that I don’t like. When I have read Encyclopedia’s in the library I don’t ever get that impression of “yet achieved a neutral point of view”. It already presents itself from a neutral point of view and the tone is never, ever objectionable or biased.

When I say “majority rule” it is such that if a view is changed by a person not in the majority the majority almost always changes it to their perspective. The editing of views is done by the majority with the minority trying to change but being unsuccessul. Hense the understandable “conservapedia”.


Anonymous 02.28.07 at 1:10 am

A wiki can be adequate, if carefully regulated. Memory Alpha is run very strictly, and so tends to be accurate.


DH 03.02.07 at 3:17 pm

One must define “accurate”. That is why I like Encyclopedia’s over wikipedia.


BD 03.03.07 at 1:34 am

Wired News has the background.,72818-0.html?tw=wn_index_2

We are in the outer limits - started in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly (son of Phyllis) and teens.

Good way for these kids to get an education - this ought to be quite the learning experience when various conservatives are laughing too.

58 home schooled high schoolers from New Jesery. Man, you can’t make this stuff up.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>