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
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.
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.
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 13, 2011
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 03, 2009
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
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 March 24, 2011
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 01, 2014
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