Conservapedia

[rahmota]

I was goign to post this over on CS under check it out but then thought better of it as it might be a bit umm provacative or at the least too close to it to feel comfortable about it.

But there is apparently a group of people on the far right wing who feel that Wkipedia has too much of a "liberal" bias and have started their own pedia for as they put it" The truth and trustworthy information."

Looking around their site I was appalled at the bias they show. they treat intelligent design and creationism as actual scientific fact. Anythign to do with sex is considered bad, naughty and shouldnt be done. There are bible verses attached to all the articles I looked up. Economically speakign any social program is the biggest evil there could ever be. Basically this site panders to the WASP right wing nutjob zealot.

I mean check out this first paragraph from their article on homosexual marriage:

In regards to homosexual marriage, the same-sex "marriage" movement is seeks to destroy the sanctity of marriage by using political power to enforce a redefinition of the concept. The aim is to prevent any criticism, particularly religious-based criticism, of homosexual relationships. In regards to homosexual couples, studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples. In addition, studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior.[Citation Needed] These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the commonness and brutality of homosexual murders. The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships.A particularly worrisome factor among gay rights activists is One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.[Citation Needed]

Its rather kinda scary actually. they are painting christianity as if they are being persecuted by the romans again. Lat time I checked the lions where not getting fed very well you know?

Hers whats even funnier the most view pages list:
Most viewed pages
Homosexuality [2,198,839]
Main Page [2,078,211]
Teen Homosexuality [301,599]
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer [296,384]
Homosexual Agenda [277,462]
Arguments Against Homosexuality [253,448]
Wikipedia [251,287]
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia [247,918]
Theory of Evolution [229,851]
Adolf Hitler [229,659]
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics"

*sigh* Isnt it so lovely how the internet just lets everyone with any kind of computer skill say whatever they want to.

[Seshat]

*sigh* Isnt it so lovely how the internet just lets everyone with any kind of computer skill say whatever they want to.

Yes.

I totally disagree with what they say, but I approve of them having the right and ability to say it.

I just wish they'd do the same for me.

[CancelMyService]

I don't begrudge anyone for having different views than my own, but it is a bit creepy when they have to create what looks like a parallel universe that only contains things that agree with their point of view.

I mean, if your views are as unassailably correct as a lot of people think their views are, why does there need to be "separate but equal" sources of information?

[AFPheonix]

Once again, Lewis Black sums up my thoughts perfectly:
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/63646/detail/

[Boozy]

Hers whats even funnier the most view pages list:
Most viewed pages
Homosexuality [2,198,839]
Main Page [2,078,211]
Teen Homosexuality [301,599]
Homosexuality and Anal Cancer [296,384]
Homosexual Agenda [277,462]
Arguments Against Homosexuality [253,448]

Hard-line conservatives have a rather suspect obsession with butt sex, don't they?

I'm just saying...

[Amethyst Hunter]

I don't begrudge anyone for having different views than my own, but it is a bit creepy when they have to create what looks like a parallel universe that only contains things that agree with their point of view.

Actually, this is EXACTLY what the hardliners want to do, and you're right to be creeped out - create a parallel universe in which their views are the ONLY views available. Their goal is to eventually overwhelm the secular world into submission. This includes offering alternative Internet services where the providers are explicitly Dominionist (that is, catering to that extremist right-wing fundamentalist apocalyptic-happy element) and permit access to *only* explicitly Dominionist-friendly websites.

It's also a big reason why homeschooling is very popular amongst this fringe: at home, they can control their kids' brainwashing to a near-perfect extent. It's bad enough that several states have had to pass restrictions on the types of high school/college educational degrees that they'll accept, because several of the Dominionist curricula are so incredibly crippling that any kid made to study underneath it is going to enter this world at a VERY severe disadvantage (among them, the A Beka curriculum has been noted to be one of the worst offenders).

Yeah, I know it sounds all tinhatty, but have a lookup of www.theocracywatch.org or dominionism in general. You'll find some pretty horrifying things.

[Rapscallion]

Hard-line conservatives have a rather suspect obsession with butt sex, don't they?

Those major page views are more likely to be from forums with links to those pages, often with comments of, "OMGWTFBBQ! Look at what those crazy guys think!"

Still, I like your version better if I want a giggle.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

Seshat: Yeah I dont begrduge anyone the right to have an opinion and be able to stand on the street corner (literally or in this case figuratively) and shout it out for the world to see. Of course they should also be able to respect the fact that I have the right to fall on the ground laughing my ass off if its somethign too crazy too. I'm sorry if my comment made it sound like I was against them having their say. I'm not I just really really wish we could put a giant warning label on the front of the page like they do for porn sites or something.

Unfortunately Conservapedia (and the rightwing) as has been pointed out by Amethyst and Cancel, they have a slightly skewed view of reality and a certain lack of concern over not trampling other points of view.

Amethyst: Yes that is a very good website to watch out what the enemy is doing. And is rather scary. Just because you're paranoid doesnt mean someone isnt out to get you.....

AFP: I'm on dial up and that site keeps frlaking out on me. Can you give a crib note version?

Boozy/Raps: Yeah I found their view statistics rather interesting and thought they could speak for themselves, interpret them as you will. It is highly probable its folks like me who where/are testing their site to see their views on certain key subjects but still that is a rather interesting set of topics to be looking at for a conservative community.

[Boozy]

Check out the entry on "Liberals"...it actually has cartoons!

Raps is right; most people visiting this site are probably making fun of it. Its hysterical.

[AFPheonix]

Rahmota: he's just ranting about Conservatives ranting about a liberal bias in the media, and then point out that most media outlets are owned by conservatives like Rupert Murdoch.
He then goes on to make fun of Conservapedia and Cube ( a conservative version of Youtube that relies entirely on links to Youtube videos), laughing that these were created to counteract Youtube and Wikipedia, the most egalitarian media outlets in the world because their content is generated by viewers, because conservatives perceive they have a liberal bias.

[rahmota]

AFP: Ahh I see. The circular logic illogic of the media is biased they have an agenda. Conservatives own the media they have an agenda its called make tons of money so they pander to what sells which is the latest crisis and drama and conflict. Social issues cause a lot of that so they cover a lot of social issues and the conflict...

Got it.

And yeah one of the great things and the worst things about wikimedia is that any nutjob can edit it and unless there is some strong hands or strong consensus at the helm you can wind up with some really oddball stuff. Then again even with that you can have some oddball stuff. Just means you have to use your own brainpower and figure things out for yourself. A skill it seems is not as common as it once was.

[Skunkle]

Correct: Any nutjob can edit Wikipedia etc. But at the same time, when you have any person from any demographic allowed to edit, though there may be a bias, it will by nature tend to be at least fairly evenly distributed. And if someone of either side really spouts off and rewrites an article, filling it with rants and not citing sources (as is required, generally) it's easy to revert it back to a former edition.

The hardcore Conservapedia set seems to be of the mind that, if it isn't their way of thinking, it is a "Liberal bias" and, as well, inherently incorrect. In fact, it seems to be thought by the hardcore Conservatives (and to a degree, hardcore Liberals as well) that any who share the beliefs of the "other side" are not only wrong in these beliefs, but are wrong in every belief they hold, in every word they say and, in fact, wrong in who they are as entities, opinions aside. And of course, if they believe that all media outlets save, perhaps, Fox, are Liberal-biased, of course Wikipedia articles would be called biased; if they cite sources that are anything other than Fox, they must be biased.

I've got no issues with Conservapedia existing and continuing as it is. I don't agree with about 90% of what's posted there, but I agree that they have a right to a place where they can be among like minds.

I'm mostly on the liberal side, but not completely. I see the media on the whole being across the middle of the board. Fox is very much right-leaning, and radio station Air America is very much left-leaning. But the consensus from the far right seems to be that, if anyone is anywhere left of them (even if said person, group etc. is what most would call middle-of-the-road) it makes them liberally-biased. "Anyone an inch to the left of me is a left-winger". Some even go so far as to claim that moderate Conservatives are really liberals-in-disguise.

Mind, I also avoid the hardcore, far-left guys, as they can be just as much wingnuts as the hardcore, far-right guys. I have far-left family members who can and will discount not only everything a person SAYS, but everything that person IS, because that person isn't far-left. And that isn't okay either. Sadly, the mentality on both sides' hardcore ends can be summed up as "I'm right because I know I'm right, and I know I'm right because I'm right. It is the way it is because I say so, and I say so because it is" It's indeed circular illogic.

[guywithashovel]

I first heard about Conservapedia several months ago. I spent a little while reading through some of their entries. To some extent, it was amusing, and to some extent, it was disturbing. I thought their entry for "Liberals" was kind of amusing. It was also interesting to read the gushing entry they had for "Conservatives." I was tempted to read their entries for homosexuality and gay marriage, but I decided not to. The anti-gay people really get under my skin sometimes.

All in all, I try not to let people like the owners of Conservapedia get to me too much. Even though I'm sure they would deny it, they are a dying breed, much like the Segregationists were back in the 1950s. I'm not saying Conservatism is dying. However, I think it can be safely said that Social Conservatism---an ideology obviously ahered to by the Conservapedia crowd---is fading away, or at least changing forms. Much of it is rooted in religion, and statistics show that people are gradually getting less and less religious. Roughly 15 percent of Americans claim no religious identity, which is nearly twice what the percentage was in 1990 (sources below). Percentages of non-religious people are even higher among the under 30 age group.

With this in mind, I think it's safe to say that the folks at Conservapedia and their ilk will eventually fade into the background. However, I'm sure they'll be replaced by another group similiar to them in another respect.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar.../me-religion10
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7041036&page=1
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/ta...-tradition.pdf