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.Related Words
by chapter4 June 21, 2008
Get the conservapedia.com mug.A webpage which serves a purpose of countering Wikipiedia's alleged bias towards "liberalism." The truth is, it's just an intolerant, religious persn that bashes everything that goes against his religious, political, and scientific views, that most closely resemble those of a caveman. An apparently strong believer in the Jonah in the whale fairy tale of the bible, he insists that evolutionists suffer a syndrome called "evolution syndrome" and that we just "somehow" know that we came from other species. In what his words would be, he is a false prophet.
GOP convention
John: I saw a black man today. Oh, and also one of those hippies evolutionists.
Calvin: yeah i read about them in conservapedia. Strange folk
John: I saw a black man today. Oh, and also one of those hippies evolutionists.
Calvin: yeah i read about them in conservapedia. Strange folk
by LukeSky🚶 May 1, 2014
Get the Conservapedia mug.Person #1: I went on Conservapedia today.
Person #2: You must be really smart now.
Person #1: I got an A on my test 25 minutes afterward.
Person #2: You must be really smart now.
Person #1: I got an A on my test 25 minutes afterward.
by Illinoisian November 25, 2018
Get the Conservapedia mug.A person who generates, publishes, has interest in, or becomes excited by disinformation or alternate facts found on the Conservapedia webpages. Clearly, the creators of these pages and his/hers/their content is only intended to promote the bullshit and lies commonly attributed to the Fecalogeny (UD), for the purposes of destabilizing the United States.
If you want to see Conservapediaphiles out in the open running free, drive past a MAGA rally, but keep your doors locked.
by Bangd Ingow March 4, 2024
Get the Conservapediaphile mug.