Oh my, for those of you that may not be aware there is a newer website called Conservapedia.

An article on the site:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/02/1172338880787.html

And the site:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

The game... find the most ridiculous article you can and post it. I can't really do it because I have already been provided with quite a few silly links. It wouldn't be fair.

Edit: It is an attempt to be like Wikipedia, just with a Christian twist, kinda.

Weird. Couldn't they, you know, just submit changes to Wikipedia if they didn't like the content? Seems a little extreme to go to the trouble to making their own entire Wiki-thingy.

Weird. Couldn't they, you know, just submit changes to Wikipedia if they didn't like the content? Seems a little extreme to go to the trouble to making their own entire Wiki-thingy.

It may become the "Third Testament".

Or in the case of Mormons; The "Forth Testament".

I like what they are calling "vandalism". Apparently, they consider anyone trying to correct their facts and post something that they don't agree with to be a "vandal". This is just funny. And pitiful. But mostly funny.

I went to the changes page and was reading some of the dialogue there, and it really IS a hoot. I am more at the "laugh and point" stage than the "pissed off" stage right now, but I'm sure I'll get there eventually.

Um, I think it crashed. Every time I try to go to a different page, it says Mediawiki 1.9.3 - Please set up the wiki first.

I'm not having any problem.

I went to the biology page and was trying to go through the index, and I kept getting that page.

Have you seen the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia? It's great. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

I looked up George w. BuSh and it said (in part):

Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well . This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently. Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007. Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.

during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, (what's a signle?) The profits have been at the expense of everyone else in the country.

executive salaries have greatly increased as well. I find that amusing because BuSh was complaining a few weeks ago about the excessive salaries of CEO's.

Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy. I guess even the working class deserves to have something.

Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level. Or BuSh fought the Democrats, but lost that battle.

This site is the epitome of what is wrong with the USA and why the USA will destroy itself.

If everything is looked at with an "we are correct, lets adjust the data to prove it" attitude, then of course the rest of the world is wrong and a paranoia will entrap us, setting the stage for a war among people who see the world as a place for all humanity as compared to the people who see the world as a place to do the bidding of the USA.

This is “doublespeak”; right out of 1984.

I started to read the Bush stuff and knew I'd just become angry so I didn't really read it.

Lauren... I didn't even think to look on Wiki for it, that's amazing that they would put something like that up. People all over the world are laughing at it.

But many children will be brainwashed by it.

I imagine this will be required reading at "Jesus Camp" next summer.

I found this under Conservapedia Talk.

Quality issues

Appaling quality, tiny stubs, moderated to allow no critical viewpoints of conservatives. Simplistic propaganda which only circulates errors to those know no better. No chance of putting across alternative viewpoints and theories with this set up. If you want an on line encyclopedic resource which has an alternative conservative viewpoint then good, its call freedom of expression and you do not have that here. This really is drivel and a failed project.

Didn't fail at all. It's picking up steam. Have a nice day! Karajou 04:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT) (Adding a headline for this)

It indeed has the potential not to fail, but I wouldn't go as far as saying "Didn't fail at all". Indeed, he/she/it has a few valid points. Conservapedia often seems to try to be different than Wikipedia even though it says it wants to be better. Take a look at locked articles like Faith or Theory of Evolution, which have been locked after attempts to bring them more in line with... well... REALITY (to put it extremely bluntly). It should be noted that Conservapedia became notable enough for Wikipedia because news outlets basically made fun of the vast discrepancy between what is advertised on the front page and what could (and often still can) be found in the articles. Removing pro-Creationism material gets you a Ban warning, but adding "liberal" things or material that doubts Christianity ALSO ends with reverts. Yes, it is picking up steam, but it's still sailing in a quite odd direction in my eyes. --Sid 3050 14:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

And what kind of direction do you wish it to go? Karajou 19:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I don't mind the current direction. Conservapedia has become my main source of entertainment and silly trivia. However, as a contributor to the site, I'd appreciate a change towards balance. The current lack of balance is certainly not an accident. Right now, Conservapedia is Wikipedia in a distortion mirror. The site states that it's against the blatant liberal bias of Wikipedia, and (assuming for a minute that this is actually true) I'm okay with that goal. What I' not okay with is how things went from "remove alleged bias" to "full throttle into another form of bias", and I have to assume that this bias represents conservative views. I'm German. I have NO idea what a "good, conservative American" really is. But based on what I see here, being conservative means that you should take the Bible literally, believe in Creationism, believe that America and Christianity are the best at everything, etc. Next time somebody tells me he's a conservative, this is what I'll think of him/her. And no, that's not a good thing. But about my issues with the lack of balance... here are a few examples of articles that got worse in terms of balance and fairness:

• Take a look at this diff of the Theory of Evolution article. It happened right after the entry had been protected, and reverted a good deal of work that might have pushed the article towards a sort of balance between information about evolution and criticism. But it actually got worse since then. Now, check out the current article and tell me if it has improved in terms of balance since the protection. It has turned into a long (the Conservapedia rule about being concise seemingly doesn't apply) rant against evolution and the scientific community. Bonus points if you can explain why the article mentions how the Bible was right about how lions kill their prey.
  
• But it gets worse. The Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution. No, it doesn't just say that it's a possible argument against evolution, it actually says "In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution", and editing it could be hard since the article is protected. And yes, it has of course been reverted to a less balanced version during the lock procedure.
  
• The same goes for the revert of the Faith article, just before it's protection.

Conservapedia currently is exactly what it accuses Wikipedia of being. Only worse. It still has the potential to get away from the image that blogs and news outlets currently have of it, but it will take time, effort and a looser policy in regards to what counts as an "inappropriate edit". But if news articles can't change the course this site has chosen, I don't think that our discussion here (or, in fact, any discussion on this site) will lead to change. Maybe Conservapedia will improve eventually. Maybe conservatives (other than the ones on this site) will accept it as a reliable source. It's certainly possible... but unlikely in my eyes. --Sid 3050 21:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Agree. The second law of thermodynamics can help life on Earth. For example, it is as a result of entropy (an extension of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that we get heat from the sun... --EldestportTalk!Work 06:28, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It will not let me create an account.

I wanted to correct some mistakes and add an entry for "Doublespeak".

Another bit I found under Conservapedia Talk.

Whoa... well, things are getting interesting, aren't they? What an ugly mess... Conservapedia seems to have gotten noticed in this blog which may be the source of some of the increased traffic. The unkindest thing of all is that it really appears to me is that people are making fun of entries in Conservapedia without noticing that the things that seem risible are the result of recent vandalism by other people making fun of Conservapedia. Dpbsmith 20:28, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I've been in touch with our server and they have made some improvements, but say the main reason is an increase in traffic. I noticed that our number of page views seemed to jump by nearly 10,000 in one day! We can upgrade to wider bandwith if this continues. I don't mind (unjustified) mockery one bit, by the way. It attracts attention to our site and will be helpful in the long run.--Aschlafly 20:36, 21 February 2007 (EST)

"There's no such thing as bad publicity," huh? Well, let's hope, then, that the vandals have all installed the Alexa Toolbar... Dpbsmith 14:48, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Ed Brayton's note was likely responsible for part. Also, it got picked up in the talk.origins usenet group. JoshuaZ 21:38, 21 February 2007 (EST)

The majority of the mocking has nothing to do with the vandalism (which I don't condone) that will undoubtedly follow from the recent publicity. If you read the critiques you will find that while they may have been made in a mocking tone, mamy of them are valid. I've been using the "Random Page" feature to scan some of the entries, and many of them look as though they were written by grade schoolers--amateurish and decidedly unencyclopedic in nature. They look that way because many of them are in fact written by teenaged students. I can only imagine what they are making of all this. Dpbsmith 14:52, 22 February 2007 (EST)

These blogs are sure useful for finding mistakes! I just corrected the dates in the index, which had been changed to CE, after reading this [1]. ~ SharonS 21:17, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Andrew, you have already started upsetting one of your more regular contributers (JoshuaZ) by making edits counter to the rules that you yourself made up, then justifying your actions through bold assertions that have no basis in fact. (And no, Andrew, "creationist" is not a pejorative term. Most creationists I know will proudly proclaim themselves as such!) Finally, I just came across the Economics discussion page, and what do I find? A discussion about the merits of the Economics entry? Not likely, since it is only one line. No, you are using it to communicate with your students about some economics assignment you have set them!!! What on Earth has that got to do with creating a serious online competitor to Wikipedia? I think Joshua was right in asking you if this is really just an encyclopedia of Andrew Schlafly's personal opinions, because you sure seem to be acting that way. abba180180 03:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I find more and more edits that show scant regard for either Christianity or America [3]. This site seems to have been inflitrated by liberals pushing their agenda. JC 12:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds like someone is afraid of something. The first criteria ought to be, is the information accurate? Menkatron 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT) I am all for truthiness, as long as it is conservative in nature--Anikitos 14:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT) Truth cannot have a "nature". Truth is not a variable. Truth will remain truth without any regard to political views. So if liberals are writing the truth on pages, and you don't like it. Then there must be a problem with your thinking, since the truth can not be altered.--ALFa 17:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT) Well NPOV is important on here, if not it would be breaking it's own rules. This site has rules against things un-American. The First Amendment is one of the things that makes America what it is. To deny this, is un-American.--JamesLipton 16:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT) I'm for accuracy at every point of the article subject. Whomever writes on a particular subject, get your sources together first and write as well as you can. Karajou 09:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)