Conservapedia

[Linen]

This is just scary..... and what reputable teacher in their right mind would allow students to use any wiki-type site as a reference for a research paper?

link

From the Los Angeles Times
A conservative's answer to Wikipedia
Seeing a liberal bias on the popular online encyclopedia, a teacher launches Conservapedia -- to give a different angle on the facts, he says.
By Stephanie Simon
Times Staff Writer

June 19, 2007

Andy Schlafly was appalled. He was teaching a history class to home-schooled teens and one student had just turned in an assignment that dated events as "BCE," before the common era — rather than "BC," before Christ.

"Where did that come from?" he demanded.

Her answer: "Wikipedia."

At that, Schlafly knew he had to act. In his mind, the popular online encyclopedia — written and edited by self-appointed experts worldwide — was riddled with liberal bias. Dating events without referring to the New Testament was just one example. How about Wikipedia's entry on golfer Zach Johnson, winner of the 2007 Masters? Not a single word about how Johnson gave credit for his win to Jesus Christ.

Thus was born Conservapedia.com — labeled "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust."

Schlafly, 46, started small, urging his students to post brief — often one-sentence — entries on ancient history. He went live with the site in November. In the last six months, it's grown explosively, offering what Schlafly describes as fair, scholarly articles. Many have a distinctly religious-right perspective.

Take the Pleistocene Epoch. Most scientists know it as the ice age and date it back at least 1.6 million years. But Conservapedia calls it "a theorized period of time" — a theory contradicted, according to the entry, by "multiple lines of evidence" indicating that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, as described in the Book of Genesis.

"We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them," Schlafly writes in his mission statement. "Beyond that we welcome the facts."

Conservapedia defines environmentalists as "people who profess concern about the environment" and notes that some would want to impose legal limits on the use of toilet paper.

Femininity? The quality of being "childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."

A hike in minimum wage is referred to as "a controversial manoeuvre that increases the incentive for young people to drop out of school."

And the state of the economy under President Bush? Much better than the "liberal media" would have you think: "For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."

With fewer than 12,000 entries and typos galore (the misspelling of Mobil above; the mayor of L.A. is referred to as "Anthony Varigoso"), Conservapedia isn't about to supplant Wikipedia — which boasts 1.8 million articles in English alone.

But the all-volunteer site has several thousand active readers and writers. Schlafly encourages his students to use it as a reference, saying that the articles are more concise than those on Wikipedia. On the home page, just above the daily Bible verse, he tallies total views: 12.3 million and counting.

Conservapedia's critics for the most part have no problem with the articles heaping praise on former President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of Britain. But they worry about material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seek to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion. They're also concerned that children who stumble onto the site will assume everything in it is authoritative.

Schlafly says students can always follow the footnotes to get more information, but few links connect to dissenting — or even mainstream — views.

"The project specifically targets high-schoolers, and that's probably what I find most dangerous," said Andreas Kjeldsen, 27, a Danish graduate student who wrote several entries on medieval history before stopping in protest.

Many, perhaps most, of Conservapedia's articles are free of ideology. There are brisk, straightforward entries about hundreds of topics: the tuba, Claude Monet, the nation of Latvia, Robin Hood, polygons, the Renaissance.

But consider the entry on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (b. 1947). She "may suffer from a psychological condition that would raise questions about her fitness for office" — namely, "clinical narcissism," Conservapedia asserts. Evidence of her instability includes her "ever-changing opinion of the Iraq war." Though Schlafly demands that entries be rigorously footnoted, these sentences are not.

Schlafly calls the armchair psychology "borderline in acceptability" for his site, but he defends the Clinton article on balance as "an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective."

The whole point of his encyclopedia, he said, is to provide a different angle on the facts — ones that a student researcher wouldn't necessarily find on Wikipedia, or in the school library.

Schlafly, the son of Republican activist Phyllis Schlafly, is a Harvard-educated attorney who practices in Chester, N.J. He does not know most of Conservapedia's contributors; they're spread out across the world and communicate through online pseudonyms. He promotes writers he finds trustworthy to be systems administrators, who are able to block editors and protect certain articles from changes.

Even among this elite group, there's no ideological conformity. Terry Koeckritz doesn't take the creation account in the Book of Genesis literally, but he enjoys the site and spends hours writing articles on topics such as Fox News.

"It is what it is," said Koeckritz, 56, a computer consultant in Reno. "A family-friendly, Christian-friendly encyclopedia."

That makes it an interesting window into a foreign world for college student Tasha D. Jones, 24, who says she loves to browse random pages and see how writers have inserted Biblical quotes or framed historical events in religious terms.

"It gives me a better understanding of how people feel religion relates to our lives," said Jones, who attends Sacramento City College and has contributed articles on lemons, mangoes and other nonpartisan topics.

The articles change constantly, as most are open to editing by anyone online; on a recent day, a few showed dissenting views. An entry about kangaroo origins, for instance, stated that most scientists believe in evolution. (It was the last line in the entry, after a lengthy discussion about which marsupials Noah may have brought aboard his ark.)

In other cases, a glance at the entry's history — which shows editing over time — makes clear how quickly dissenting views are deleted. Dr. Peter A. Lipson, an internist in Southfield, Mich., repeatedly tried to amend an article on breast cancer to tone down Conservapedia's claim that abortion raises a woman's risk. The site's administrators, including Schlafly, questioned his credentials and shut off debate.

After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia.

And — by their own admission — engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire, including this addition to an entry on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales: "Mr. Gonzales is a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants."

The vandalism aims "to cause people to say, 'That Conservapedia is just wacko,' " said Brian Macdonald, 45, a Navy veteran in Murfreesboro, Tenn., who puts in several hours a day on the site fending off malicious editing.

Such aggression has reinforced the view among some Conservapedia writers that left-wingers are out to suppress their free speech.

"I had heard it spoken of, but it had never really hit home before just how hostile they are," said a 15-year-old in New Jersey whose mother asked that her name not be used.

The girl, who is home-schooled, wrote an article for Conservapedia on Irish dancing and uses the site to research papers. But the biggest lesson she's taken away as a young conservative is: "There are people who want to destroy us."

Discuss.

[Valrys]

Originally Posted by Linen

This is just scary..... and what reputable teacher in their right mind would allow students to use any wiki-type site as a reference for a research paper?
Discuss.

Wiki is obviously a good source of information in some circumstances (like when the authr has a clue in what they;re talking about. I like to read wiki articles regularly, in the hope of learning something new and pointless. But I would never use one to complete work. (Ok, I lied, I have when I;'m being really lazy).

Now, the article:
Well, the internet being (or masquerading as) a free place, I am all for allowing Conservapedia to exist. Even though this is obviously stupid and also less reliable than the regular wikipedia, due to the articles only having a conservative slant, whereas wiki tries (and usually fails) to be impartial, at least it has people from all over the place with different views spending their time on it.

Also, in the same vein, It amuses me about rationalwiki, cyber-terrorism and all isn't a good thing, but in this case its probably a good idea, oor at least the two sides will be too busy squabbling with each other to annoy anyone else.

And 12.3 million views? Thats a lot of corrupted minds.

And finally, I'd rather go read Uncyclopedia than this "excyclopedia". Anyone agree? ^.^

[Velvet_Mansfield]

"Femininity? The quality of being "childlike, gentle, pretty, willowy, submissive."

and

"And the state of the economy under President Bush? Much better than the "liberal media" would have you think: "For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."


That is scary!

[Godslayer Jillian]

"We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them," Schlafly writes in his mission statement. "Beyond that we welcome the facts."

That's idiotic.
They themselves admit "Facts are only secondary to what we believe is factual"
That must be in the Top Ten bullshit mentalities of all time.

[djaeternum]

"an objective, bias-free piece from a conservative perspective."

But a perspective is inherently a bias. . .

[Drake Dun]

These people crack me up. I just got done reading 1984. Can you say "doublethink"?

Here is the real question, and it's one I have never answered to my own satisfaction. Why? Not the site, I mean, but the mentality. Presumably they are getting something out of it, emotionally. What do you suppose that is?

Drake

[Aaroneet]

Finally, Fox News has an answer to the "liberal media" that has been tainting my views on wikipedia! News that is "fair and balanced"! Because I can always trust Fox News not to change the facts to suit their opinions, right?

But seriously, this is neo-conservatism at its most paranoid. It's really a pattern with most powerful political parties. Religion and old beliefs are simply manifested in a new form, presumably to take control of U.S.A, and the direction in which it turned. It is representative of a failure to adapt new policies, reforms, and an overall failure to change. Now the politicians simply know how to exploit this...

Neo-conservatism, the way it is displayed in the likes of Fox News and now Conservapedia, is a returning to old ways of thinking, with new ways to get the point across.

[Lady_Lacrimosa_Umbrae]

Anyone bothered to look up "goth"? After a brief reference to the Germanic tribe, I found this:

Neo-Gothic Art is an art style/art movement started in the late 20th century. The art is typically dark and gothic and often with emphasis on the relationship between sexuality and religion. The movement includes artists like Floria Sigismondi, Marilyn Manson and Victoria Van Dyke.

...

I don't know why, but this whole page reminds me of a couple of things... like the "Creationist Museum", with a light touch of that "Reform your gothic child though the Lord" thing...

Scary. What annoys me is that they present is as a fact, and it's aimed at people doing a research for something that is not biased.

[ArtificialOne]

Well....

I have to say that over 90% of mass media is very left of center. That being said, facts are facts. I like the "BCE" timing scale. It makes things very much easier to understand archeological and other historical stuff.

I think that the hypocracy lies in that only the left is able to have a view ,and if the right has one, or if anoyther left winger has an oposing view they are thrown out of the left wing club. Everyone should have their own views. If some crazy ignorant people want to blur the facts on creation and build a museam that is sacriligious to all that is scientific, so be it.

I would just like the left, and others like them to stop silencing and belittling other points of view and trampling on the rights of others.

[djaeternum]

Well, BCE doesn't make things easier, it still refers to the same delineation of time. Personally, I prefer BCE and CE, in reference to the "Christian Era." This is, I think, a fair compromise, recognizing that Christianity has been world-shapingly important, without trying to guess Jesus Christ's likely birthdate. The fact of the matter is that Christianity is and has been important and significant, outshining, by far, whatever unrecorded accomplishments Jesus made.

[CptSternn]

Heh. About a year ago they did a study on the new media and the stories they reported on the run-up to the Iraq war. I have the link posted somewhere in the 'Iraq Revisted' thread, but will have to dig it up again.

They reviewed all newscasts and the sotries they ran - and results showed that NPR had the least amount of errors in the newscasts (ie. stories they turned out to be inccorrect or false) with like 8%, while Faux news had almost 80% of their sotreis either having facts that were incorrect making the story take a different view or that the stories they reported had been made up all together and were never based in fact.

It's amusing to think the people who use that resource as their main tool to gather news are now fed up with a open source encyclopedia becuase they disagree with 'views and principles', not the facts listed, so they create their own version of en encyclopedia.

What that says is they would rather have facts that are wrong, or only partly true to base their arguments on, and knowing that most of the news they choose to hear does the same in their reporting, it doesn't seem to bother them.

Cheery picking history and current events to make them bend into the message you have already decided your trying to push and force the facts, with a bit of bending, into the point your trying to convey.

It sad that people are so afraid of reality that would allow themselves and contribute to, the perpetuation of lies to keep their mind at ease so they can believe what they want without allowing annoying things like the truth and science to get in the way.

[Draconysius]

I thought UrbanDictionary.com would be enough for the ignorant populace. Guess not.

I really don't mind that they created that ludicrous site. As long as they don't give students a failing grade for using Wiki, or force them to use Conservapedia. The first freedom we, as Americans have, is the freedom of religion. So we shouldn't be FORCED to adhere to the moral codes of ONE RELIGION.

[ArtificialOne]

No, instead our new moral codes that people want us to blindly follow are the Paris Hilton and George Soros's of the world.

Even though I have a somewhat wierd view of religion now. I'm glad I was taught those horrible hypocritical views, and didn't end up in the "world owes me everything" line.

Their is a blatant war on religion being waged by Holloywood and the ACLU right now. USA Today ran a great piece in the Opinion section a couple of days ago. I'm not a xtian, but hell, doesn't the aclu have anything better to do than trying to tear down war memorials that date back to 1912 or something just because it's a cross. IMHO I think the aclu and types are trying to rewrite history and do away with anything xtianity based or a reference to any past war.

Religion seems to be a good scapecoat for lots of things.

And Stern, Just come out and say you're a propagandist. Maybe I'd respect you just half a millimeter more. And you go off on your same old bs everytime someone mentions that the media is left wing. Crying about pre Iraq war bs again. Who listens to npr or pbs anymore. DIdn't they lose most of their funding after an investigation finding them biased? Read or heard that somewhere... I stopped listening to them after they've ran so many pro Hamas and Palestinian crap on their programs. Might as well join with Al- Jezera. Oh sorry for interrupting your business as usaul rant about pre iraq war bs.... Hardly think that amounts now to the blatant bs they spill over the airwaves now. Maybe someone will buy that fliver of an idealogy you're trying to sell. Maybe some newbies on the street.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

No, instead our new moral codes that people want us to blindly follow are the Paris Hilton and George Soros's of the world.

Thats just you and your culture, don't try to bring the rest of the world down with your pop icons. Europe doesn't give Paris any air time. She might make the tab rags, but she never makes headlines like she does in the states. People here don't care.

Even though I have a somewhat wierd view of religion now. I'm glad I was taught those horrible hypocritical views, and didn't end up in the "world owes me everything" line.

I don't know whats more ironic. The fact you admit the views you have are horrible and hypocritical, or the fact you are proud that even though they are, you are happy about how they forced you to become a person who would further those views by supporting them even knowing they are as such.

Their is a blatant war on religion being waged by Holloywood and the ACLU right now.

Really? I missed when they went after the Muslims and Jews. Oh wait, you mean your religion. Once again, your statements speak volumes even though you don't. When you say they attack religion what you mean to say is they are going after a cultural bias that slants towards Protestant Christians. Saying they attack 'religion' is a misnomer.

IMHO I think the aclu and types are trying to rewrite history and do away with anything xtianity based or a reference to any past war.

Good to see you rally against civil rights organisations. Once again, speaks volumes about you without saying a thing. Without the ACLU, blacks would still be drinking from separate water fountains and only counting as 2/3rds of a person in the votes. But hey, I'm willing to bet things like that don't bother you in the least.

Religion seems to be a good scapecoat for lots of things.

It's not so much a scapegoat as it is a flag bush and his right wing cronies like to fly when they need support. Want to get people to rally behind bush while the is an unpopular war? Raise the anti-gay marriage flag and claim the Bible tells them its wrong. Need even more support? Tell them you are out to save life (even though your blunder in the Middle East has cost 655,000 lives and counting) and stop stem cell research, once again because you feel its 'against the Bible'.

Before you say religion is a 'scapegoat' you should really see how its being waved around by your kind and more importantly why civil rights groups want to break that connection and effectively do what the framers of the constitution planned and separate church and state.

And Stern, Just come out and say you're a propagandist.

Propogandist? Is that like 'the decider'? We making up names now or can I be anyone I want cuz I'd rather be the Kwisatz Haderach.

And you go off on your same old bs everytime someone mentions that the media is left wing. Crying about pre Iraq war bs again.

Heh, you have to love when right wing people try and downplay all the lies brought up prior to the war, and even after, by saying things like 'your still talking about those lies and the fact the president acted immorally? Get over it'. It's not like the war is still going on and people are still dying for no reason. Oh wait.

Thats tantamount to telling the African Americans to 'get over' discrimination. Or why not tell people in New Orleans to 'get over' Katrina. Sheesh, who do they think they are still complaining about the fact their state is still in ruins. I mean, when you live so far away you never saw the damage and don't have to deal with it on a daily basis - who cares? Right?

Who listens to npr or pbs anymore.

Hey, you asked, here it is...

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2...?cat=3&media=8

DIdn't they lose most of their funding after an investigation finding them biased? Read or heard that somewhere...

Nope, must have been one of those Faux News stories I was tellin ye about in the previous post.

I stopped listening to them after they've ran so many pro Hamas and Palestinian crap on their programs.

Once again, proving my point here. As I said in the last post - people created the conservative wiki because they didn't want to have to face the truth. You tune out all news media, except right wing fox and the like, for pretty much the same reason - if they aren't spewing right wing shite that falls in line with your ideology, you turn it off and tune it out.

Doesn't mean they aren't right and it isn't happening.

[Saphyra Runa]

Gentlemen, while there are matters that need to be debated on this thread, you've managed to turn the thread away from it's original topic.

Debate this elsewhere and I will happily participate. In the mean time return this thread to it's objective.

[deafasadoornail]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

"We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them," Schlafly writes in his mission statement. "Beyond that we welcome the facts."

That's idiotic.
They themselves admit "Facts are only secondary to what we believe is factual"
That must be in the Top Ten bullshit mentalities of all time.

Actually, bullshit or not, this is a mentality that holds true for everyone. Haven't you ever heard that "History is written by the victors?" I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just saying that's how it is.

And I second the concept that secondary and college students shouldn't be citing sources like Wikipedia anyway. Schools need to be teaching kids not only how to get information but how to weed through bad information. Adults are inundated with bullshit everyday and an important life skill is learning how to shovel through it for that one tiny nugget that might possibly be true.

[ArtificialOne]

HA! I love how stern hates anyone but himself or his communist buddies.

Unlike pretentious stern, I won't spend my precious time trying to repost comments while ignoring other ones in posts so.... I think he proved my pint on bias quite nicely... infact, I'm singing that song in my head from the radio.. "everytime that you CryYyYy...It makes me smIiiIIiIle...It makes me sMIiiIIiILE..."

lol.

Bias was the point in discussion I believe.

And I agree with deaf, shouldn't be qouting internet sources for college papers unless doing a paper on it. Sometimes good ol fashioned leg work is the best way to learn. I know in my field, almost nothing exists on the web, so books, books and asking old timers...or searching old used bookstores which is fun...

And stern, keep searching, even though I do belong to one party. You will never in your feeble atempts try to pin down what I truly believe. Why you scream at the top of your lungs to shoot down anyone that does not share the same fascist and communistic views of the world and all it's great evils you have. You are the self righteous one you try so hard to preach against. Oh and yeah, celebrity worship is HUGE in the uk and Auss, especially Spain. Try not to be a hypocrite deary.

[KontanKarite]

Dude, what the hell EVER.

Can we not just say the facts such as "An elephant has a long nose"?

Why do we always have to get politics involved on everything?

It's going to get to the point that kids are going to have to choose what sort of political slanted education they're going to want.

So, jimmy, you want to go to left wing school or right wing school? You'll learn all the facts, but we're going to tell you what your opinion is on it all, kay?

[Lapin]

I love Conservapedia. They're fun to poke at.

I thought that last name looked familiar. His mother, Phyllis Schaefly, is famous. She was a leader in the STOP-ERA campaign. (Equal Rights Amendment) She is a born-again who firmly believes in gender roles.

Even though she's a brilliant lawyer who graduated from Harvard.

I know. You all don't need to say it.

So it really doesn't surprise me about her son.

Anyway, Conservapedia tends to get their facts weird only if it disagrees with their viewpoints. Then they slant it to their own angle. But all websites do this, so you can't really cite them for much, except when they blatantly make it up.

[Aaroneet]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Dude, what the hell EVER.

Can we not just say the facts such as "An elephant has a long nose"?

Why do we always have to get politics involved on everything?

It's going to get to the point that kids are going to have to choose what sort of political slanted education they're going to want.

So, jimmy, you want to go to left wing school or right wing school? You'll learn all the facts, but we're going to tell you what your opinion is on it all, kay?

That's too easy. It would involve the child growing up to ask questions. It's like what Arthur Conan Doyle said, "We change the facts to suit our opinions instead of the opinions to suit the facts."

Or, you could use the novella ANTHEM as proof, and draw the conclusion, based upon the societal opinion, that pursuit of knowledge for and by onesself is a dangerous thing.

[dark_dragon_of_ice]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

Why you scream at the top of your lungs to shoot down anyone that does not share the same fascist and communistic views of the world .

Umm facism is far right wing, fascism is a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and communisum (which is left wing) ..how the hell can that work?

[Undead_Stagehand]

From Conservapedia itself:

Gothic is a term used to describe objects, and ideas such as art and literature.

It should be noted that people who are gothic should not be pointed out as such. I.E. "Look at that gothic." Gothic is an adjective not an noun. The proper way to say it is. "Look at the goth." It's common with the game played by other goths known as Spot-the-Goth.

Honestly, is that a real game?

[CptSternn]

It's in the conservapedia. It MUST be true.

[CptSternn]

While we are on the subject of right-wing reporting, this article today about how Faux News is getting sued for basically making up news and then dedicating an hour to spreading it falls right in line...

School official sues Fox over report parody story in Maine

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mai...ton.com+/+News

LEWISTON, Maine --A school administrator who says he was ridiculed and harassed based on a bogus news story is suing.

Lewiston School Superintendent Leon Levesque is seeking $75,000 in federal court in Portland to deter what his attorney Bernard J. Kubetz characterized as irresponsible reporting by Fox News Channel.

The parody, on a Web site called Associated Content.com, was of the school district's response to a prank in April at Lewiston Middle School. Levesque suspended a pupil for tossing a ham bone on a table occupied by Somali students, knowing the Muslims would be offended. Muslims consider pork unclean.

The lawsuit contends that Fox reported the parody as fact on its "Fox and Friends" show on April 23. The show's anchors repeated a comment attributed to Levesque, that "These children have got to learn that ham is not a toy," and that there was an effort afoot to create an "anti-ham response plan."

A Fox and Friends anchor even assured viewers they were "not making this up," according to the lawsuit.

"It appears to me that Fox News acted in a grossly irresponsible way and took some information that was really not very plausible, did not do any substantial fact-checking, and put it out as hard news," Kubetz said.

Levesque said he was overwhelmed for days with phone calls and hate mail, including threatening calls to his home.

Fox did a brief on-air retraction, but Levesque called it unsatisfactory. A Fox News spokesman in New York said the company does not comment on pending lawsuits.


To think that a childs story on a personal homepage was taken by Fox News and then used as the basis of an hour long news segment its simply incredible.

I mean, how low is the bar they use to judge whats real? Who does their fact-checking? Also the fact, like all the mis-reporting they did during the lead up to war, they later put a 2 second correction on the crawl underneath the news speaker at 4am and then try and claim they did 'offer a later retraction' is laughable at best.

Sad thing is, this isn't the first time. Fox News ran a story a few months back based on an 'article' they found at....drumroll....The Onion. I mean, seriously? Fact checking?

It amazes me that anyone would after all that consider them a news agency, when they obviously go out of their way to report on whatever it is they choose to believe, no matter if its real or isn't.

To see the same type of people now starting their own online encyclopedia is scaring, knowing what they already try and report as fact based news, one can only guess what they will say about past events in history.

[CptSternn]

Lewis Black and his views on the conservapedia.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=CJEeyLeqJHc

A MUST watch.