Conservative rival to wikipedia

Remove all ads!

Well here it is.

Here are the examples of bias in Wikipedia.]

Found this here

 

I read through a few of the biases and I really dont see a problem. I mean whoop-dee-friggin-do if Wikipedia uses British spelling over American English. There were a couple of points like that. I am not sure who actually started the site and who maintains it so for all I know, they could be British or any other country that uses the British spelling.

However, I am opposed to the fact that Wiki skipped important details about trades and policies involving America, like that Phillipenes(sp?) one.

Personally, I will still use Wikipedia as it probably has a larger bank of information and I am EXTREMELY athiest and live in a British English speaking country.

 

I never even considered that Wikipedia was a biased source. I always assumed that since it could be edited by anyone, that any sensitive article would always be destroyed by the overly-sensitive.

I'm curious how conservapdia will turn out.

Thanks for the info

 

Conservopedia have gone so overboard it have turned into a parody of itself.

Example:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

Also, the entire Wikipedia Bias article. Ugh.

 

Bah, Wookieepedia is the only real source of information!
You never know too much about Kowakian monkey-lizards

 

I have, actually, noticed that many of the authors are from US and/or christian origin, which leads to the disturbing phenomenon of their articles being very US and God centered. Much like certain topics here.

Editing these out is quite a job, but perhaps I should had taken the time when I noticed it... Otherwise I see no reason to diss Wikipedia.

 

I see nothing wrong with that. From what I gathered from the link to their website, they seem to think that just because people of the USA are generally more conservative than what the Wikipedia people are, Wikipedia should become more conservative. They obviously don't know what www stands for, since Wikipedia is also used by people who don't live in the US.

They also seem to think that every topic should be covered fully at an instant. That is not realistic concidering how many things there are to write about compared to people who can actually write something decent about those things.

 

Since when is CE anti-christian? It's just another system. Is anything not christian automatically anti-christian?

Sounds like one biased pedia is getting replaced by another biased pedia.

The article about Wikipedia on Conservapedia is so stupid it's funny. For a site that claims Wikipedia is anti-american, claiming that "only 10% of Americans accept evolution" might not be the best thing to say. Besides, I'm not so sure I believe this number. Not to mention it's not referenced, which makes me think whoever wrote this just came up with it on the fly. Ridiculous.

 

Oh right, I forgot to mention:

This made me laugh my socks off. In Italy, Christians burned the art they considered 'pagan', and that was most of it. Credit that if you wish.

There was also something about how Wikipedia uses 'foreign' spelling, even though most English speakers are American. How about the rest of the world? We no hablo ingles here?

Bullsh*t. "They aren't perfect so trust us." "BTW, we are even worse, a lot worse that is."
Maybe I should start reading spam instead of normal mail as well.

 

So, uh, does Christianity feel it's not getting enough credit for all the amazing work torturing forward thinking scientists during the Renaissance.

 

This is no big deal. The internet is a free world. If someone wants to set up another encyclopedia, then that's fine. If it's any good, then it will gain momentum and grow. If it's crap, then it will just become an amusing novelty.

Sure, Wikipedia is never going to be 100% accurate the way that 100% of people want it to be. So long as you take it with a grain of salt and double check anything contentious then you should be fine.

 

Now this is just stupid. If an article in Wikipedia is biased its neutrality can be disputed and everyone can go to the talk page to see what it's about. So even if there's bias it's really not a big deal. This conservative version is just stupid and adds to the large number of idiotic wikipedia copies out there. Oh and how exactly does the fact that there was previously no mention of other than European feodalism in the article about feodalism in Wikipeadia prove liberal bias? To me it proves just a shortcoming in the article.

 

I prefer uncyclopedia.org anyway...

Actully I love wikipedia, when you're bored you can waste tons of time learning about anything. I haven't even taken notice of the Euro-English and dating; that's with me being more conservative than liberal.

 

Shhhh! They don't want us to know that! Brian from 'Family Guy' describes 'the church' best..."Do what I say or I'll hurt you."

 

OH. MY. GOD. Wikipedia uses English spelling?! I must purge my eyes with fire!!

No, seriously, Conservapedia is quite funny, but not in the "Yeah, that's good point"-way, but with the same way that makes me laugh to conspiracy theorists claiming that moon doesn't exist or something similar.

 

This is an incredibly stupid idea. They claim that Wiki is biased ... and go off and make an openly biased alternative. Clearly their problem isn't bias - if that was it maybe they could spend their efforts on 'repairing' Wikipedia's bias instead.

Hell - it annoys me that Wikipedia is so American centric already - no one needs any more of that kind of nonsense.

 

I based the draft for my German major on Angela Merkel from this site. I was required to submit another draft.

Just a thought - wouldn't have the Americanisation of the English language been a function of liberalism as opposed to conservatism? Think about that.

IMHO they're all a bunch of f***wits. I mean why waste your time posting for something that is unashamedly biased, when an unbiased, not to mention larger and more complete alternative exists? Not to say it isn't amusing. All we have to do is wait to see how long it takes for users to post a host of pro-satanist articles in obscure places.

After reading a couple of articles, I must say that, generally, the linguistics of the authors is incredibly simplistic and the articles are sorely lacking in depth and the bilateralism that was one of the great strengths of wikipedia.

The article on Christianity is only 33 words long and cites one source. The equivalent Wikipedia article is almost 200 times longer and cites 93 times as many sources.

 

Conservapedia will be like these books: 'Woman's English - an indispensable guide to their world for men'

 

Quotes from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

"The term "CE" is preferred by academics in some fields (e.g., by the American Anthropological Association)"

"In the United States, the usage of the BCE/CE notation in textbooks is growing."

"The US-based History Channel uses BCE/CE notation in articles on non-Christian religious topics such as Jerusalem and Judaism"

And wikipedia is supposed to be anti-American?
Don't make me laugh! It seems to me to be more pro than anti, by using a system that America appears to be increasingly using.

If Conservapedia has issues with Wikipedia, then why has it conspired to make a competitive website look almost identical? Perhaps Conservapedia should expand their topic about "plagiarism" - oops! They don't even have an article for that!