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)
(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 3, 2009
Get the Conservapedia mug.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 8, 2009
Get the Conservapedia mug.Related Words
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
Me: lol
by Stupid Corn November 1, 2007
Get the conservapedia mug.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...
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...
#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 April 10, 2011
Get the Conservapedia mug.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.
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?
umm yehh..why mention atheism?
by A REAL WORLD PERSON October 6, 2008
Get the conservapedia mug.by chapter4 June 21, 2008
Get the conservapedia.com mug.A blind conservative follower who spews “alternative news” that they get from bloggers, podcasts, conspiracists, political commentators, and the opinion section in the paper.
by Saladtosser6969 January 1, 2018
Get the Conservacuck mug.