Conservapedia - the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia

The Conservapedia Commandments

This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia. These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on many other websites.

The Commandments
Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.

When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.

As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.[1]

Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.

Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked. A blatantly inappropriate entry, such as vandalism or obscenity, can result in immediate blocking without warning.

That site is NOT serious!

Please tell me it's not.

Please!

That site is NOT serious!

Please tell me it's not.

Please!

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on Wikipedia. Please add to this, and also contribute entries to Conservapedia.

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.
2. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.
3. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.
4. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[3] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[4].

Young Earth Creationism
From Conservapedia


Young Earth Creationism is the belief that the Earth (and generally the universe) is approximately 6,000 years old as opposed to the evolutionary view that Earth is 4.5 Billion years old and that the universe is at least 13 Billion years old....
...

Popularity

Roughly 45% of the United States are Young Earth Creationists and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years.

At least you can access it these days.

I learned about it a couple of weeks ago. The site was so swamped I couldn't connect.

There seems to be sport amongst some people to edit it with the result being getting banned when you don't follow their world view.

The site was created by home schooled children to fight the bias in Wikipedia. If nothing it makes you question the home schooling movement in the US.

Quote:

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on Wikipedia. Please add to this, and also contribute entries to Conservapedia.

1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.
2. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.
3. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.
4. Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[3] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[4].

The list goes on for some length

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Yes, 45% of the US believes that the earth is 6000 years old.

They even give a citation for it which in no way supports their claim.

parados wrote:

Yes, 45% of the US believes that the earth is 6000 years old.

They even give a citation for it which in no way supports their claim.

Are you implying they're wrong?

Nick Allum of the University of Surry in England suggested belief in astrology might be a simple misunderstanding of the question, with people confusing astrology with astronomy.

In one European study about 25% of people said they thought astrology was very scientific. But when the question was rephrased to horoscopes that fell to about 7%.

parados wrote:

Yes, 45% of the US believes that the earth is 6000 years old.

They even give a citation for it which in no way supports their claim.

Are you implying they're wrong?