look up any word, like thot:
 
8.
a conservative wiki with articles (95+%?) that always somehow end up either blaming Liberals and non-Christians for some reason or another. It also seems to strongly imply one's religious beliefs has a connection to ones capability of doing certain things (e.g. violence).

due to the fact that it's a wiki some these examples might not be accurate anymore.

some examples of bias/lies/inaccuracies on conservapedia :

#1 socialism - we see a picture of Hitler on the top of the page

Nazism is more of an ideology of its own than anything else, it would be more accurate to place it in its own article than be under socialism. Also it also puts communism under this too, rather inaccurate.

#2 Fredrich Nietzsche - the first section is calling him crazy

WTF?! they didn't even explain what his philosophical views are and he's declared crazy right at the beginning?!

#3 Islam - "the most violent religion"

I don't care if this is true or not but this is this is bad etiquette calling it right off the bat, not to mention it also implies there's something questionable about it

#4 Bill Clinton - all the credits of economic success should belong to Republicans (implied)

really? please explain why public opinion favored him during the government shutdown and impeachment

#5 Grand Theft Auto

I don't even know where to begin on this...
some more examples of bias/lies/inaccuracies/stupidity on Conservapedia

#1 you can't edit anonymously

is this really free or is this a (right wing) dictatorship?

#2 George W. Bush

mentions nothing about him being attacked by a shoe thrower at Iraq

so much for being fair and balanced...
by extreme133 March 24, 2011
 
1.
A fundamentalist Christian wiki encyclopaedia project which promotes Biblical creation and rejects science. Heavily criticised by both conservatives and liberals, it is the subject of ridicule from those who are used to getting information without a heavy dose of fundamentalist hilarity.
Conservapedia says:

1) all kangaroos are descended from a single pair who were on Noah's Ark.
2) gravity is an unproven theory.
2) Einstein's General Relativity "has nothing to do with physics".
3) only followers of Christianity are capable of religious faith
4) atheists are incapable of being moral
5) Jews are "touchy" about the Holocaust
by kronix March 02, 2007
 
2.
A complete disaster masquerading as a supposedly factual on-line encyclopedia. It was created as an alternative to the alleged "liberal bias" of Wikipedia in order to "protect the children" as it were. In fact, it is doing more harm than good because the information posted as factual is very often wrong, dangerously incomplete, or an outright falsehood. Use of Conservapedia as a primary source of information is not advised.
Little did Andy Schlafly realize how Conservapedia elevate deliberate ignorance to a whole new level.
by M T March 24, 2007
 
3.
A Wikipedia satire website that spoofs far-right Christian fundamentalism. It teasingly promotes Young Earth Creationism over evolution, jokingly labels atheism as an insidious evil infecting the world, and...wait, what? You gotta be kidding me - that site is SERIOUS?!? Good lord.
I used Conservapedia to help me write my book report, but my teacher told me I'm in third grade now, and should know better.
by voidsoul April 08, 2009
 
4.
A site that claims to offer an alternative to the "liberal bias" of Wikipedia. It ultimately fails because, as we have learned with Fox News, fighting bias with bias only leads to more bias. One of the best humor sites on the web.
Conservapedia: "Some conservatives claim that conservatives and an overwhelmingly small minority of liberals consider deceit wrong and actively fight it, and that there is substantial evidence that liberals are more guilty of deceit than conservatives."

Me: lol
by Stupid Corn October 16, 2007
 
5.
An instant fail if you use it to help you with your homework. I learnt this the hard way, and when I used it for my 5th class (the equivalent of 5th grade for all those Americans reading this) project on space, I only passed because my dad said it was all bullshit.
Me: Hey dad, is it true Earth is 5,750 years old?
(Dad collapses and rolls around on the floor, laughing)
Dad: Where'd you learn that shite?
Me: Conservapedia!
(Dad drops to the floor again and rolls around laughing...again)
by driftking18594 October 03, 2009
 
6.
A wiki, very similar to wikipedia on everything. However..i have noticed many hypocrisies and hmm, well crackpot theories.

The hypocrisy which pisses me off most is that in the "Examples of Bias in wikipedia" article http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia)

number 22. (out of 133 ffs)reads:

"Wikipedia has an extensive entry on "Creation myth".40 Describing Creationism as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage Christians, and although the theory of evolution satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth". "

Fair enough, slightly mental, but he has a point...yes?
However...looking at the article on the conservapedia article "Dreamtime", an australlian aboriginal creation story; IT is described as a myth.

So Christian creationism is NOT a myth but any other creationism is?? hmmm...



also on the article about kangaroos (boing boing) there is a large 3 paragraph section on the Young Earth Creationist theory and only 1/2 a sentence on the evolutionary theory

so the YEC theory which is probably less supported than evolution recieves more coverage than a well established and most probably correct theory.
Conservapedia on Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia founded by entrepreneur and atheist Jimmy Wales..."

umm yehh..why mention atheism?
by A REAL WORLD PERSON August 10, 2008
 
7.
An 'online encyclopedia' with plenty of 'accurate information' made by 'dedicated conservatives'.

In other words, a website full of ignorant, biased BS made almost entirely by trolls (depressingly, genuine believers of it do exist) to parody the viewpoints of far right wing.
The universe according to conservapedia:

1. Liberals are always evil and wrong, and conservatives are pure and holy. Because of this, there is no reason to listen to a liberal's argument or take them seriously.

2. Liberal influence is everywhere. The following organizations all contain liberal bias:

Wikipedia

Every news station except FOX News

The Public Education System

The United Nations

The Video Game industry

3. Despite this, signs of the general public's support for conservatives are everywhere. Even something as simple as one movie being more popular than another can clearly signify conservatives being better than liberals.
by APersonGuy April 12, 2011