Conservapedia

**Gav** · 03-02-2007 10:21 AM

Some evangelicals who are tired of a liberal un-American wikipedia* have created an inadvertently hilarious competitor called Conservapedia. It appears that they are taking the web back from people who use un-American spelling.

Check out the Conservapedia commandments - if nothing else.

Everyone (seemingly no matter what their political/religious stance is) has lined up to heap derision on it.

As a whole I am not sure whether to laugh or cry when I read it.

* In a sense they are correct - the wikipedia is not very good.

**RITFencing** · 03-02-2007 10:28 AM

I still don't know if this review is serious or not.

I think it's a joke, but there are some real notjobs out there.

Regardless of what the intent was, it's funny reading.

**noodle** · 03-02-2007 10:41 AM

all i can think of to say is this:

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert

Originally Posted by Gav

* In a sense they are correct - the wikipedia is not very good.

and wikipedia is good. it was proven to be statistically just as correct as brittanica. just don't be an idiot and cite wikipedia as a source in any important academic papers. use it for your everyday informational purposes.

**Gav** · 03-02-2007 10:55 AM

it was proven to be statistically just as correct as brittanica.

Without wishing to derail this too much - this is not true. I make the assumption you are citing the study reported in Nature which was later shown to have several errors in it?

In any case wiki is fine if all you want to do is look up the cast of Star Trek or something.

**noodle** · 03-02-2007 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Gav

Without wishing to derail this too much - this is not true. I make the assumption you are citing the study reported in Nature which was later shown to have several errors in it?

nope, there was another one done, looking for the source now.
basically, wikipedia has more errors in it, but it also has more articles in it. the rate of errors are very similar.

and as a computer engineer, i've already read over the stuff i know, and i've not had to correct a single thing, yet.

**Gav** · 03-02-2007 11:17 AM

and as a computer engineer, i've already read over the stuff i know, and i've not had to correct a single thing, yet.

As a Biologist (and now IT manager) I have to say I've come across several glaring errors when reading the wiki.

**noodle** · 03-02-2007 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Gav

As a Biologist (and now IT manager) I have to say I've come across several glaring errors when reading the wiki.

well, fix em. thats the point, isn't it? if you see an error, as a professional in your field, you can take 30 seconds and edit the page for it to be correct. if you see an error in a normal encyclopedia, its permanent.

**clagen** · 03-02-2007 11:29 AM

Wikipedia, whilst useful, does indeed have glaring errors. My dissertation advisor has even suggested that students create correct and cited references for it in lieu of standard assignments - we're not sure if the University can sanction this yet, but we are looking into it. Unfortunately, it appears that the Conservapedia has gone the way of Dodo bird. URL error.

**TooLoftheDeviL** · 03-02-2007 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by noodle

well, fix em. thats the point, isn't it? if you see an error, as a professional in your field, you can take 30 seconds and edit the page for it to be correct. if you see an error in a normal encyclopedia, its permanent.

As much as I love wikipedia for some of the amazing information I find on it, ESPECIALLY in regards to music history, genre, etc., you have to admit this is also part of the problem.

I don't know why people get their kicks out of editing wikipedia to say "LOL BUSH IS TEH DEVIL" and the like, but it is an added inconveniece.

web2.0 for life?

**noodle** · 03-02-2007 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by TooLoftheDeviL

As much as I love wikipedia for some of the amazing information I find on it, ESPECIALLY in regards to music history, genre, etc., you have to admit this is also part of the problem.

I don't know why people get their kicks out of editing wikipedia to say "LOL BUSH IS TEH DEVIL" and the like, but it is an added inconveniece.

web2.0 for life?

yeah but they're trying to fix it via a trust-based user level system that wasn't in place during the major graffiti phase.

**noodle** · 03-02-2007 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Gav

As a Biologist (and now IT manager) I have to say I've come across several glaring errors when reading the wiki.

Originally Posted by Gav

I make the assumption you are citing the study reported in Nature which was later shown to have several errors in it?

i just noticed the irony in these two statements, also.

**Gav** · 03-02-2007 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by noodle

i just noticed the irony in these two statements, also.

Not sure what you mean. Admittedly the language is terrible - but it was typed on the hoof in a rush.

**noodle** · 03-02-2007 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Gav

Not sure what you mean. Admittedly the language is terrible - but it was typed on the hoof in a rush.

not really the language. the reference to errors.

everything contains errors. noone should assume that anything, from wikipedia to brittanica to major scientific journals, is 100% factual. everything should read critically, especially if its for academia.

**Rabid Monk** · 03-02-2007 12:23 PM

It's good to be able to compare contrasting viewpoints.

From that regard, thaks to the link to Conservapedia. It's got same rather interesting points.
(And here I was alaways taught CE/BCE meant "Christian Era"/"Before Chirstian Era". There's my years in a Catholic Elementary School showing through, I guess.)

In my opinion, though, Uncyclopedia is still the best.

Originally Posted by RITFencing

I still don't know if this review is serious or not.

I think it's a joke, but there are some real notjobs out there.

Regardless of what the intent was, it's funny reading.

That article is very much tongue-in-cheek. Well done tongue-in-cheek, too.

**TrainingDummy** · 03-02-2007 08:52 PM

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_W._Bush

HaHAHAHAHAHAHA!

EDIT: Read the Reagan entry!

**Phaeton** · 03-03-2007 04:18 AM

You probably want to fact check wikipedia like anything else, but wikipedia is probably one of the better starting points for an idea. Usually things are described in an easy enough to understand....and sources are cited at the bottom. Wikipedia is great at giving a foundation of knowing what you want to know so you can go out and make sure that you get the facts straight on the right topics.

**Inquartata** · 03-04-2007 02:13 PM

Heh...so apparently there are no conservatives in Britain or Australia ( because you must use "American spelling" ). Fascinating...

Perhaps they should name it Americonservapedia...

And there are no non-Christian conservatives, either, it seems.

Oy.

**RITFencing** · 03-04-2007 03:03 PM

Inq, I've actually got to sympathize with you here. Though I am not really a conservative (being a self described moderate learning towards liberal) I feel bad for anyone who gets the reputation of their philosophy tarnished by a few nutjobs at the far extreme.

**Gav** · 03-04-2007 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Heh...so apparently there are no conservatives in Britain or Australia ( because you must use "American spelling" ). Fascinating...

Perhaps they should name it Americonservapedia...

And there are no non-Christian conservatives, either, it seems.

Oy.

In this context conservative has a very different meaning if you compare here with the US.

In addition it was the US nutjobs who called it the Conservapedia - not me.

**RebelFencer** · 03-07-2007 03:59 PM

I was just about to post a thread about this. Has anyone taken a gander at their take on evolution?
http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Oh, and noodle...I'll see your "Reality has a known liberal bias" and raise you "Reality has become a commodity."

Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Thread: Conservapedia

Thread Tools

Display

Conservapedia

Posting Permissions