Fundies Create Unbiased, Conservative Online Encyclopedia

One more time, from the Department of Fundie Whining...

Apparently Wikipedia is far too liberal for the fundies, so they created an alternative. It's called Conservapedia, and on the front page, it explains why it was created. The site boasts that Wikipedia is liberally biased, so presumably, the editors created this site, which is in no way, shape or form biased, even though it's called "Conservapedia."

Don't believe them? Here's a page listing the ways Wikipedia is biased, which reads like a serious case of the crybabies. Some of their complaints include Wikipedia not spelling words the American way, and not listing dates the Christian way (i.e. using C.E. and B.C.E instead of B.C. and A.D.) Apparently, in order to be non-biased, you have to be American/Christian biased. Who'd have thought?

I especially enjoy #15, which whines that Wikipedia has too many articles about pop culture, that pop culture has zero educational value, and that Wikipedia doesn't mention how many there are. Apparently, Conservapedia would like Wikipedia to claim on its front page, "We have 1.5 million articles, but half of them have no educational value!"

And since when was learning about pop culture useless anyway?

So what kind of journalistic integrity can we find on Conservapedia? Well, let's look at this childishly-written article on Ben Franklin.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was one of the Founding Fathers, he was ambassador to France, and also he is on the $100 dollar bill. Benjamin Franklin was a prolific inventor, he invented the Franklin Stove and the bifocal and also proved the existence of electricity with an experiment involving a key attached to the tail of a kite being flown in a lightning storm. Benjamin Franklin was truly a great American.

Nope! Definitely no bias here! The rest of the page goes on to argue that Ben Franklin wasn't a deist, then ends. In fact, 90% of the page is about his being a deist; there is no mention of his role in founding the U.S., his scientific experiments, or his writings. Yep, this page is definitely better than the Wikipedia entry!

Anyway, down to the real business. Here's an article, from CNS News, about Conservapedia. It's written by Payton Hoegh.

A conservative alternative in the up-and-coming online encyclopedia field said it aims to combat what it calls "liberal bias" on the highly popular collaborative Wikipedia.com site.

Apparently combatting liberal bias with conservative bias. The Conservapedia editors couldn't possibly consider going to Wikipedia and suggesting or making changes to make it more neutral, apparently.

Conservapedia.com was formed late last year in a bid to challenge the established online encyclopedia giant Wikipedia, which is one of the 15 most visited websites in the world.

I'm sure people will totally flock to Conservapedia, if all of their articles are as good as the Ben Franklin one.

The conservative encyclopedia began as a class project for Andrew Schlafly - whose mother, Phyllis founded the Eagle Forum - and 58 of his New Jersey history students.

So a teacher is instructing his high school students in their creation of a clearly politically-biased project? This sounds like something that, if liberals did it, would have fundies up in arms and screaming in rage.

It claims to have grown since then to be "one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

It lies.

Nothing more credible than a self-proclaimed biased website that touts how great it is on the front page!

The opening screen for the website states that it "is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American."

Yep, anything short of having an orgasm over America and Christianity means the page is "anti-Christian and anti-American."

The site claims that many of Wikipedia's entries provide dates with the "anti-Christian" C.E. (Common Era) rather than A.D. (Anno Domini, or in the year of our Lord)...

Remember kids, if it's not "pro-Christian," it's "anti-Christian." Never mind that most of the world is not Christian, Wikipedia had better start using B.C. and A.D., because anything else is offensive to fundies!

...and claims that Christianity receives no credit for its role in great advances like the Renaissance.

Really? Cuz I read over the article for the Renaissance, and found numerous references to Christian historical figures, artists, and works of art, in addition to vast and varied links to other articles. Oh, sure, it mentions religious persecution of the Medieval period, but I guess the fundie-pedia folks would rather just pretend that didn't exist.

"Tired of the liberal bias every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears?" the Conservapedia site asks.

I suppose I would be if I saw any, the Watcher answers. (Don't you just love how Payton Hoegh writes as if this were some neutral, unbiased news article?)

"Now it's time for the conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!

Yeah, cuz you guys were totally missing from the Internet before this.

"Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America ...

That's nice. Wikipedia is an online resource and meeting place that doesn't have an axe to grind. Guess which one people prefer?

You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of 'political correctness.' "

Not to mention factual correctness.

Besides, I'm sure I can find some political correctness somewhere on Conservapedia too. Most likely because fundies don't know what "political correctness" even is.

Ah, yes, here's some. This is the article for "feminism":

Feminism is the philosophy that the sexes deserve to have equal rights.

Please note: This is not an excerpt from the article on feminism; that IS the article on feminism! And it sounds pretty PC to me!

A representative of the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent company of Wikipedia, told Cybercast News Service Monday that its editors "come from all political spectrums" but that they are held to a strict code of neutrality.

"Wikipedia articles are neutral and adhere to a neutrality policy called NPOV (Neutral Point of View). This means that all major viewpoints are represented in an entry reflecting the diversity of our editors as well as insuring the stability of our articles."

As well they ought to. They are not, however, under any obligation to entertain ludicrous, unsubstantiated theories like flat-Earth or evolution and global warming being lies from the vast liberal conspiracy.

The Wikipedia website explains the NPOV concept, saying that all articles must present "fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."

And they'll catch you on it! If there's no cites, your article will get a big box asking for them. I don't see any such boxes on Conservapedia.

"The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented," the website added.

Wikipedia co-founder Jim Wales said this principle is "absolute and non-negotiable."

Well, I gotta give you CNS fundies credit this time; at least you're quoting the opposition.

Conservapedia did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comments, but Schlafly was quoted by the New York Times as saying that his site achieves "what Wikipedia says they are trying to do but actually don't do."

Oh yeah, it's totally thorough, well-researched, and unbiased. How neutral can a page be when its entire stated goal is to counterpoint somebody else?

The relatively new Conservapedia site boasts over 3,800 entries compared to 1.67 million articles in the English section of the multi-lingual Wikipedia site.

And, considering that Conservapedia expects Wiki to come right out and say it, I'm sure there's a page on Conservapedia that tells how many of those articles have "zero educational value." Hm?

I'm sure there are some.