It was bound to happen right? What with all those anti abortion extremists around, someone, sometime was going to object to the easily unfiltered information on the web and strike back with something a little more in keeping with their own moral philosophy. And presto; Conservapedia was born, a religious rival to the might of Wikipedia. Now when you search for something, you get it with a slant..
To illuminate you on this matter, I illustrate this point with an excerpt of an entry from both sites. The word searched for? GAY. The results are shocking.
Conservapedia Entry:
'Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle between members of the same sex. It is more than simply a sexual act, it is going beyond the boundaries that God has setup for marriage; one man and one woman.
Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible
.
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
And it goes on from there. In comparison we have the Wiki entry;
Gay, an adjective originally meaning carefree or lighthearted; more recently referring to homosexuals, in some contexts both genders (e.g. gay rights), in others, men only (e.g. gay sauna) G-A-Y, a London nightclub GAY, the IATA airport code for Gaya Airport in Gaya, India Typhoon Gay, the name of several tropical cyclones.
Well, I know which server would give me objective impartial well rounded information, but I can see the Americans (primarily the red states/Texans) being quite keen on the Conservative searches. I especially find it amusing/disturbing how they promote themselves as being the 'Trustworthy' search engine. Yeah, and the world was created by a dude seriously in need of a shave.
I worry however at the plight of youth- and the ramifications that might happen if such a search engine becomes widely used. If some schools start banning Google and Wikipedia fromt heir servers and using Conservapedia instead, it doesn't bode well for the education of youngsters- growing up with a distorted view of the world and society and breeding an new nation of bigots. What do you think? Tell me.. before Shiny Shiny is banned from corrupting innocent minds, with the novel prospect of free speech.
Related Posts: Do you give good Google? I Web apologies for Google ad I Search with YubHub
Ummm It sucks!
Isn't your vilification and caricature of people of faith here just the same as their vilification and caricature of homosexuality? Neither is helpful for anything but creating animosity between people of differing convictions.
I'm an atheist myself and don't have the prettiest views on religion, but I'm very inclined to agree with Sally. Wikipedia is a fair, unprejudiced view, if that's the one you're going to champion then you should be doing the same thing.
Everyone has a right to believe what they want: by condemning the views of a number of religions here, you're doing exactly the same as this conservapedia.
Would you be so shocked and suprised if you found, say, an Islamic wiki that condemned homosexuality, or is it only Western conservatives to be condemned?
As said on fark.com, Ric Romero discovers that conservatives don't approve of homosexuality. Big whoop here.
And this has to do with gadgets, exactly, how? Oh yeh time for the obligatory right wing bash post. How dull. How predictable.
Unfortunately she is right. There are way too many instances of schools, PTA groups, etc trying to push conservative views and limited education in the public school system. This can only harm the education of those students.
The difference here is that Zara actually view both sides and put in her own thoughts around this. I don't see conservapedia do that.
They fail utterly to take up the non-sexual aspect of gay, so what *pedia do you think have their nose deep down in the gutter?
Conservapedia is more of a joke than anything. It will never be taken seriously by the mainstream. Upon my first visit to the site, I had thought it was nothing but parody (see their entry on kangaroo). I was an editor there for a while (under the username of GodlessLiberal, which does not quite describe my personal views, just more of a way of getting under their skin), until I was caught replacing Mitt Romney's article with an article about the romney, a type of sheep.
Unfortunately, the site isn't a joke. I'm all about people expressing their views, but I think they take it too far. Back in the beginning, the pro-American administrators would block Brits for spelling things the correct way (colour versus color). Presenting their hypotheses of a 6000-year-old Earth to children as scientific fact is flat-out deceit. Mr. Schlafly, the owner of the site, loves that word. Check the entry on deceit. Only liberals are capable of it.
So I followed the link here from Conservapedia (which I keep bookmarked in my "Humor" folder), I go over there every once in a while, check out a couple random pages, it's great for a laugh, but FSM help me, I almost have to cry knowing that there are people who were serious when they posted that drivel.
The problem with Conservapedia, in response to an above comment, is not that people share these beliefs. It's that they force them down the throats of innocents, and conjure a world of hate in which they wholly reside.
Conservapedia is not just another wiki. It's built to help homeschooled CHILDREN. Children are more vulnerable to the bat$h!t crazy lies & mis-characterizations of Conservapedia. So it's not just posturing. It's actually damaging, something along the lines of educational malpractice en masse.
I think the funniest thing is that Conservapedia is tauting this article as some great victory. Way to go, you got a substance-less review on SHINYSHINY.TV!
Conservapedia will never overtake Wikipedia, and their obsession with that taints the site, I think. However, you can't fault them for starting a Wiki to push their beliefs. There are tons of Wiki's out there, but Shlafly has just managed to get his name out there more than some of the others. I mean, you don't hear a lot of blogs bashing Creationwiki do you?
I'm from the Midwest and I have to say you guys are missing the point. Conservapedia serves a different function to Wikipedia, in that it will present a 'religious' view of subject, and it is quite openn about this. So if you, as a Christian (or not, whatever), want to find out a religious view you might try Conservapedia; whereas if you want to read the unreliable, and possibly narrow and subjective opinion of whoever happened to be the last person to edit the Wiki page then go Wikipedia.
At least Conservapedia sourced it's entry on 'Gay', and luckily for me there is no such prohibition against two women doing the beautiful dance anywhere in the Bible! :-)
Buffy, the problem is, conservapedia presents these as objective facts, not a religious point of view. For example, they present as fact the religious view that "Jesus is the only son of God" or whatever clap-trap they use.
Conservapedia is brilliant. It's one of the funniest sites on the intarwebs. Really, these buffoons call their site 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'? I mean, it's almost impossible to find a single fact in it. But it does make for just excellent reading and vandalising it is one of my favourite pursuits. God knows how many of my sockpuppets have been banned from it. Great fun.
Although I originally found Conservapedia pretty amusing, I'm really concerned that they have the gall to use the phrase 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia' right up there on the logo. Racism and bigotry are endemic throughout the site, and the paranoic separitism it promotes from the rest of the world is exactly the attitude that turns innocent children into sociopaths. Their head-in-the-sand mentality is deepply disturbing, and if I was the Dept. of Social Services in any county these Homeschoolers were teaching this anti-societal nonsense in, I'd remove the children from their guardians and lock these dangerous lunatics up.
Welcome to all the Mindlessly Dumb sheep from Conerservapedia who are coming over here to read "lots of crtiticism of liberals". Doesn't seem that way to me. Now, back to my cocksucking.
I am one of the Editors and Sysops at Conservepedia, and I'm tired of hiding my Homosexuality over on Conservapedia, so I'm coming out here. Thanks for the opportunity, I hope you can welcome me into your arms - and possibly your asses too.
I am one of the sysops on Conservapedia, and I need to let you know I am appalled that you are letting this liberal filth here, and also these liars and posturers. I will need your IP logs, and you'll be hearing from the authorities about this. We will not be laughed at, WE WILL NOT BE LAUGHED AT.
RSchlafly.
Conservapedia is awful, awful, awful. It's just a joke, there's not a single article with reliable facts in there. As a Christian, I'm appalled at the bigtory and zealotry I see promoted by the 'Christians' there. All it is is a set of dreadful personal diatribes, it's clearly not an Encyclopedia.
Ha hah!
Ann Coulter and I have been lovers for years. We particularly like to climax to the strains of the Horst Wessel Song.
Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!
Mmm, devine...
As the founder of Conservapedia, I demand you tell me who is letting my people and family members come out of the closet on your website. This is beomcing ridiculous. I want the police involved here.
ASchlafly Fri Jun 8 6:54pm
I've had Anne Coulter, too.
I had to stop my children from reading Conservapedia, there was so much distortion and lies on it. Although I was wary of Wikipedia, I've come to realise how INFINITELY more reliable and unbiased it is than The Trustworthy Encyclopedia.
Conservapedia is a fair and balanced source of information, not the only one, but indeed one that doesn't take a liberal or world-view, revisionist one like Wikipedia.
I agree with RSchlafly. Why can't you closed minded liberals allow true Christains one place on the vast internet? By home schooling our kids, we are insuring a whole generation of Christians who have not been tainted by secular ideas.
Surely how we raise our children isn't anyones business but our own!
Ed Wiggin - you said "Surely how we raise our children isn't anyones business but our own!"
Sorry, no. Because those children will have to grow up in a world where most information and facts are agreed upon, and those children will liekly end up paranoid sociopaths because of the defensive and mindlessly ignorant views you 'Christians' purport to shove down their throats. Because we all have to live together, and if children are taught horrendous mistruths, as per just about every article on Conservapedia, the world will go to hell in a handbasket. You say Conservapedia is 'fair and balanced'? Have you ever noticed that most of the major articles have essentially been written by one of a handful of editors, all of whom have locked the pages to avoid the balance of their views? Haven't you heard of the 'Great American System' of Checks & Balances? Might there have been a reason to avoid single-mindedness in the knowledge of the world too?
Amen Ed Wiggin!
If i want to touch my daughters and teach them that nobody will ever love them, that the bible says they are evil because of what Eve did 6,000 years ago, that science and evolution are just godless religions and that only proper christians can be truely moral, well i dont see how that is anybodys business but mine!
I read the joke postings above, so I went to Conservapedia to look for myself. Surprise: I found quite a few good, interesting, well written articles. I liked it because they are generally shorter than wikipedia, and easy to understand. Yes there were some I didn't necessarily agree with, or points of view I didn't like, and some incorrect info, (but this is true of wikipedia too, and any project where anyone can edit) but there are also some good pages there.
Religious belief is becoming irrelevant and is being replaced by fundamentalist rubbish and the people who made and support crap like dfo-0
A mere two and a half hours after coming out, RobS had his administrative priveliges revoked.
RobS is/was gay? Wow!
By the way, why not drop by RationalWiki.com sometime if you feel like exploring these issues further?
Amanda, are you smoking the bad stuff again??? Well-written??? Some of the articles are entertaining, but pretty much none are well written, unless you are looking for a long-winded article on why the Earth is 6000 years old and Adam fed the dinosaurs
I understand the idea of creating a wiki documenting conservative Chrisitian views, but the real problems here are that the site states its views as facts, it is outright hostile to anyone who even mildly disagrees, and it calls itself 'conservapedia'. Conservatives do not have to be christians and the term conservative can apply to a wide variety of subjects, the fact this does not even seem to have occurred to them shows just how closed minded and egocentric they are.
I also find it funny how they forgot about the origional usage of the term 'gay' (as in happy)
I also found the John Stuart Mill page rather strange, it described him as a "moderate conservative" and it seems that this is the only reason he is spared the biased treatment that Jeremy Bentham gets in his article (also possibly the reason they never mention Bentham was his godfather) which seems to surreptitiously suggest that any non-Christian morals are evil.
I also find people comments that this blog entry paints a caricature of religious people strange; it is mocking of Conservapedia but does not seem to extend this to all religious people or even all christians.
The bottom line on Conservapedia is that there's a fundamental impossibility with the concept that there can be 'Conservative' facts. Facts are simply facts, and that's that. Setting out to create an Encyclopedia that is tinged with ANY goal is a doomed endeavour. For the same reason, a Liberalpedia would also be a total waste of time. It's called Fitting the Facts to the Theory - remind you of any other recent doomed endeavour from the looney Right?
Most readers of these comments would realise that comments from people named "RSchlafly", "Phyllis Schlafly", etc., not to overlook the late Dr. Spock, are not really from the persons concerned. Similarly, the post claiming to be from Conservapedia Sysop RobS and admitting to being a homosexual is bogus. That RobS has subsequently had his sysop privileges (temporarily) removed is coincidental and has nothing to do with any "coming out" in these posts.
'PJ' Rayment - I'm another Conservapedia Sysop, and I can tell you that we ALL know about RobS's homosexuality. You're in denial, that's all. And yes, we shut down his sysop privileges while we 'gave him a good talking to', if you get my drift. He, ahem, is seeing a little 'straighter' now. We WILL NOT allow gay people to prance around our site, flapping their hands in the air, and especially with their annoying high voices.
I have to say that, although not religious myself, I agree with the concept that we are all entitled to freedom of expression- however wrong Conservapedia might appear to some people. I don't really think the site is promoting prejudice- if anything, it is promoting particular values associated with their religious/conservative beliefs. All it is providing, is an alternative to Wikipedia, but by no means anyone has to worry about it being replaced!
I do not enjoy reading Conservapedia very much, it is biased but not biased enough to be hilarious (look up www.kcna.co.jp for that)
PS according to conservapedia, MDMA has a less adverse effect than caffeine, look it up on "drugs" entry.
I do not enjoy reading Conservapedia very much, it is biased but not biased enough to be hilarious (look up www.kcna.co.jp for that)
PS according to conservapedia, MDMA has a less adverse effect than caffeine, look it up on "drugs" entry.
I was wondering what some of the more mature members here do about dating. It seems much harder for [url=http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-kUYhrwg8erJlpK.SFy3uoJga58Q.kQ--?cq=1&p=2 ]older singles[/url] to find a mate, so I might be turning to online dating for older singles.
any suggestions? thanks.
Send Free [http://www.ecardica.com/ecards/For%20Everyone.html Birthday eCards] at [http://www.ecardica.com eCardica].
-----------
[http://www.ecardica.com/ecards/For%20Everyone.html http://www.ecardica.com/ecards/For%20Everyone.html]