June 29, 2007
-
Reliable Pedias
Conservapedia is a new alternative to Wikipedia that is trying to correct the liberal bias of Wikipedia.
Here is the link: Link I first saw it on either Jon Stewart or Colbert Report and I thought it was a joke.
Wikipedia or Conservapedia?
Comments (143)
Wikipedia because if it is on Wikipedia it must be true!
I guess to get a balance view you would have to read both! What a lot of extra time.
Ditto firewillconsume’s comment.
Wiki Wiki Wiki!
Oh, GOD. What “liberal bias”? It’s a freaking encyclopedia!
Some conservatives seem to have have a persecution complex.
Ernie and Bert choose Wiki
C is for COOKIE!
^ shuddup cookie monster.
^ What a grouchy bird!
ROWR! WIKI!
Wiki
There is no imformation on this. The article for Little Rock says “Little Rock is the capital city of Arkansas”. The Wikipedia article gives you the blow by blow on industry, tourism, schools, history, etc. on that city. The article for Franklin Pierce can be seen fully without scrolling. Wikipedia has a huge article about every President.
Charlies Angels uses Wiki to catch the criminals. Right Bosely?
I love Colbert!
Even the devil donut chooses Wiki
^^ Jesus said it………so I’m goin with Wiki!
Whatchoo talkin’ ’bout wiki?
Lexbians love Wiki!
wiki!
Gay Gary Coleman chooses Wiki too??? Wowza!
Farrah chooses Wiki too
I think that was the Colbert Report
Wiki…….the official sponsor of Scoob Loob.
Bust out the Scoob Loob! We’re going WIKIFIED!
I’m gonna go ahead and choose Wiki for Shoes…….she’s too important and busy to make a person appearance…
you gotta know when yto hold up, know when to fold up. know when yo walk away..know when to wiki.
wiki fo sho. KABOOM!
Hello? Is it WIKI you’re lookin’ for?
Pop lock and drop the Wiki!
i <3 wikipedia!
SuperWiKi!
momma don’t let your babies grow up to use conservawiki, or whatever the f it’s called.
W to the I to the K-I
SLIP-A-WIKI
wi wi wi wi wiki wiki wak!
Ask T-Pain….he’ll buy you a wiki!
hahaha someone is EXTREMELY bored!
Wiki, thanks.
I’m Ed Kaz and I approve of this Wiki sponsored comment.
I don’t know how to tell you this, but Wiki’s kind of a big deal.
I tend to lean twoards Wiki!
Whenever I need quick info I use wikipedia. I don’t cite it for papers or essays though, that just doesn’t fly.
HappyD is in a good mood today!
Wikipedia
Conservapedia? What a crap!
Are you kidding me??
lol, happydeviant is more than half these comments. bored, much?
It does give a different view on things than Wikipedia does. It does give valid information that Wiki would not give. Its problem is that it is extremely skewed to the right wing view of things. Whoever started that needs to realize that you do not fight bias with bias, you fight bias by presenting all of the facts and presenting all points of view on an issue.
I wonder if this might be some sort of an attack on conservatives? I do not know what to make of something that is presented as being conservative but offends me as much as the Liberal crap the mainstream media presents.
geezum.
how many comments have you gotten from TheGreenPanther and happydeviant on this ONE post?
lol. weird.
what do YOU think dan? wiki or conservapedia?
HMMM?
I’m going with Jesus up there….Wiki roolz!
Hahahaha I loved how the article started with the “immoral” business, but then they started using Biblical references and I zoned off. Anyways I prefer Wiki to the other, it seems more objective.
ha ha, thats hilarious
there should also be a internet called conserva-net “for those who hate when anyting else they dont like is online”.. lol
its ironic because anyone can add info to wikapedia, so why dont conservatives add stuff… why? I think its cause liberals not only use the internet and media more but also conservatives probably have the site blocked and cant get in to say conservative things.. ha ha
Daniel (doubledb)
^_^ this is the one I go to alot:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
I edit it some too;)Check out the Jack Thompson page, I do other pages too but I joined with others to make this an excelent page.
blah.
I hate making decissions.
Wik…no con… no wik… wik definitely… ummm… maybe?
WHAT? THE? FUCK??
How can something that’s peer-reviewed to maintain accuracy possibly have a “liberal bias”?!?!?
Oh but I almost forgot: anything the uber-conservatives don’t like, no matter how truthful, they label “liberal” like it was a four-letter-word.
wiki…. a wiki is a web application designed to allow multiple authors to add, remove, and edit content. So changing it to “conserv..” doesn’t make any sense. arrr.
I’m gonna get on Conservapedia right now and make sure it says “liberal is a four-letter word.”
I use Wikipedia for research and Uncyclopedia for fun.
i’ll stick to my handy wiki. conservapedia seems to be ran by christians. wiki seems to have all prespectives.
More fun reading…
hahaha, the lewis black rant, wasn’t it? wikipedia for the win
They’re both great.
I also quite like http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com.
Wikipedia shouldn’t be your main source of information, due to incorrect data.
OMG LOL
Wikipedia. When did being Liberal (wanting to give everyone in america decent medical coverage, improving funding for IDEA, making medicaid and SSI more accssible, improving funds to assisted living facility, etc) become wrong?
Why is it wrong to want every child to get a good education and every citizen medical insurance? Why is it wrong to want to preserve our environment?
I am so sick of selfish conservatives claiming to be big on charity just because they drop some money in the Salvation army bucket or give money to a church soup kitchen now and then. Are these people adding uninsured kids to their personal plans or handing out scholarships to autistic kids to get much needed services? I don’t think so.
Give me Wiki. Conservapedia can shove it.
Who cares? They’re both probably equally (in)accurate. I only use Wikipedia to find out about anime before I rent it, and once to find a link to the European Anthem.
umm neither is accurate enough to count as a paper source, so i will use neither! but if i were to choose wiki all the way!
Neither!
Britanica please.
This is just silly. Unless you’re looking up controversial topics, how would a Wikipedia article have a political bias? They’re not suggesting that the articles I was reading about ethylene glycol, the minimum age for governors in South Dakota, and Midna from Zelda: Twilight Princess were written by a crazy liberal to indoctrinate me into the Left wing, are they? And if you were looking up a controversial topic, wouldn’t you want, say, a reliable source??? Seriously, who uses Wiki to research abortion or immigration policies?
Wiki.
conservapedia’s a bit biased. I think it’s holding a grudge against wikipedia.
Wiki has a liberal bias? I didn’t notice. And i’m conservative.
I mean, it’s not like anyone actually uses it for authoritative research or anything, so what’s the big fuss?
wikipedia.
is conservapedia for real? it’s crazy.
wikipedia
answers for everything…even things i really didn’t want to know.
and another shudder for tmi: urban dictionary.com
I like my old fashioned encyclopedia…the one that there are actual books of.
Wiki’s better and it has things that you cant get on conservapedia
Wikipedia –it isn’t biased towards a political group who is stuck in the 1950s.
Sigh, Americans are weird sometimes.
WIKIPEDIA, bitches!
And Wikipedia is so not biased anyway.
I use Wikipedia to find out random things but I don’t use it for research. As much fun as it is to browse, I’d rather be careful and use actual books for research. Anything can get posted on the internet.
I think I’d go to Conservapedia for a laugh, though.
LOL at firewillconsume…
I prefer Wikipedia myself. Conservapedia is strongly biased toward conservative Christian Americans. Many of their scientific articles are complete nonsense. Their article on evolution is a striking example. Almost the entire article is simply a list of creationists’ arguments for why they believe evolution is false–even though evolution is a scientific fact!
Here’s something from the “kangaroo” article on Conservapedia:
“[M]odern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah’s Ark prior to the Great Flood…. Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the “Dreamtime”…”
If you attempt to edit Conservapedia’s articles in any way that sheds negative light on young earth creationism, they’ll edit the article right back and probably ban your account. Wikipedia has its share of problems, but I would trust it over Conservapedia any day.
And here I thought that ignorant people couldn’t get more ignorant!
I never knew wiki had a liberal bias. Hahaha. Funny.
Wiki.
Rofl @ decembriel. That passage is LAAAME
I thought it was a joke, too, on The Daily Show! I much prefer Wikipedia-more ‘with it’! ryc: Making cigs is sooo much cheaper.
Wikipedia. I had check out the link and found Conservapedia to be nothing but bias. Felt like it was written by some judgmental catholic.
It seems that Conservapedia is bound to being conservative, making it biased. That doesn’t mean Wikipedia is without bias, but it does mean it’s kind of hard to be unbiased when you’re called Conservapedia. I’ll continue to use Wikipedia. I’ll trust myself to know better when it’s biased.
No thanks on the socialy conservative conclusions (although I share some of them myself). I don’t have that agenda.
I’d go with Wiki, but I don’t trust Wikipedia. I don’t really trust any of these pedias.
“[M]odern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah’s Ark prior to the Great Flood…. Other views on kangaroo origins include the belief of some Australian Aborigines that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the “Dreamtime”…”
* 6/29/2007 4:04 PM
* decembriel (message)
Noah’s ark..?
Wiki.
I do prefer Wiki.
♥
Liberapedia.
conservapedia? what a joke. i visited it after i saw colbert report making fun of it and it was worthy of their joking.
what bullshit.
they’re kiddin, right??
o__o Woah…that’s scary.
>_> I’m concerned for anyone choosing Conservapedia now. *WIKI ALL THE WAY*
Wiki’s better and it has things that you cant get on conservapedia
<LI class=itemtimestamp>6/29/2007 3:42 PM
<LI class=itemsubmitter>im_in_my_own_little_world34
>.> I bet you typed in “anime” like I did and got no results. xD Hah.
I’m pretty liberal so I’m going to have to say wiki
If Ernie and Bert say it, it must be true.
wikipedia… sigh. people are stupid.
If anything, wouldn’t “conservipedia” have much more biased articles than wikipedia?
People that go to sites like “conservipedia” must be the same that take fox news for real news.
lol, What the hell HappyDeviant.
Conservatives mistake themselves in assuming that if there is no bias whatsoever then it is most definitely liberal bias. It MUST be slanted towards their faith or they condemn it as biased. This is pretty dreadful.
-David
Also, Wikipedia has features to prevent leaning to one side.
Wiki because the info is wayyy too accurate on it
Fucking Wikipedia any day. I’d rather get my info from a 2 year old than Conservapedia.
What. the. hell?
Your kidding me right?
happydeviant posted my answer!
and here i thought i was going to be oh so unique…blah! 
oh wait, she forget a Wiki in there…
“WIKI WIKI WIKI WIKI!”
is there a problem with being liberal? in educated communities there is usually a liberal bias, and if we’re talking ENCYCLOPEDIA here, why not!?
I’m conservative, but I don’t think conversapedia is a reliable information source.
However, if I were doing a university project, I would be disinclined to cite wikipedia anyway because I know a lot of professors don’t take it seriously since people can edit information and add information themselves.
I’ll stick with Wikipedia.
I am going to guess that 4 out 5 Erika’s choose wiki. I am in the majority.
WIKI WIKI WIKI!
I say that making the conservapedia is more of a bias than wikipedia! They say wiki has a bias, but NAMING it conservapedia is biased in itself!
That article itself seems a bit more biased than anything. -We barely even HAVE intestinal parasites in America!
-They’re relying on Freud to back them up. Most of his theories have been debunked time and time again.
-The great risk of psychiatric problems comes from issues rooted in the home or community where the child is not accepted. They didn’t mention that bit.
-Actually, there’s a higher instance of gay twins than anything else. Do the research, dumbass.
-Most reparative therapies don’t work. Experts agree that it leaves people depressed and often suicidal.
What a fucking load of crock.
and look at this piece of shit that supposedly outlines the “homosexual agenda”-http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda
Before this post everyone hated Wikipedia!
Yeahhhh, Wikipedia.
It’s an encyclopedia. Does everything have to be political?
Many physicists and mathematicians of recent times are atheist, however this should not put you off the subject.
Do not use the second-person in formal writing.
Generally speaking, cryptography has been the sole domain of governments, which is as it should be…. As you can see, cryptography leads to nothing more than trials and death. It’s not something that the average person should get involved with.
Not NPOV.
“Element” gives a short definition, and then has a paragraph on Tom Leher’s song…
“Marriage Ceremony” is all quotes.
This website fails. See me after class.
Wikipedia, I’m practically looking up articles on that site every other day, if not everyday!
Fuck conservapedia.
Wikipedia for the fucking winnn
You know the great thing about wikipedia is that it’s views reflect the views of those who use it, because they…write it. So, if you want to “correct a liberal bias”, just click the “edit” link on the page. Yeah.
Uh… Wikipedia. I saw that thing on the Daily Show, too, and if that’s really how they define stuff like homosexuality… I’m staying far away…
conserve a pedia sounds dangerous. prefabricated thoughts for small brains and soon you have your whole region going self-righteous. The rest of this planet could maybe do without this. It is good to know such things exist. CLAIMING to give you information ~ SPREADING rigid opinions. WOA I am boiling…
Winkipedia is a good place to browse when bored. But this Conserapedia (however it’s spelt) is so damn laughable that I wonder why they bothered.
You want research, hit the books. The internet is sketchy at best about research anyway.
’nuff said…
By the way, if you tupe in “Murder” or “Hell” you bearly pass a page. You type in “lesbian” or “gay” and you pass three pages before the end.
They’re facinated with sex, aren’t they?
’nuff said…
Definitely … Wiki …. While balance is supposively good, I see none of this on the other; it merely supports the bigots of this world, and causes distortion in the actual facts it claims to give. It’s ridiculous !
I mean SERIOUSLY.
I am in love with your commenters, dan. LOVE.
xanga needs a feature to insert audio comments–
onomatopoedia…
I say this as someone who is a registered Republican and who typically votes close to a straight Republican ticket: conservatives complaining about Wikipedia having a strong liberal bias is as nonsensical as liberals complaining about the hopelessly conservative bias of the mainstream media. Maybe even moreso. While Wikipedia once exhibited a liberal bias, that has largely corrected itself as it’s grown in popularity and attracted editors with other viewpoints. It’s now forced to stick with the stuff that every reasonable person can agree on, i.e. verifiable facts. When it fails to do that, someone comes along and fixes it. Which I suppose is why Wikipedia has been attacked by the elite mainstream media. Having the hoi polloi able to verify their claims so dynamically challenges their elitist notions as the “Fourth Estate”.
Are you serious??? This country is getting more and more loony by the day, I swear…
Wikipedia
wiki.
I am so mad that they did that…I’m a conservative and I think that’s just stupid! Number one, not everyone is a radical anything, there are some views that I don’t agree with on the conservative side as well. But the conservapedia IS biased, because it only shows the views of that side. I like the wikipedia, because people fight and have debates over everything that gets put on there, and people work really hard to keep up with the definitions. Thanks to “conservapedia” now wikipedia is going to be like, all democrat definitions because people who are conservatives will move over to conservapedia…Well, I hope not. I hope people realize it’s ok to have views on both sides; the side you choose just means you care more about those opinions than the ones you care about on the opposing side. It’s very rare to find someone who agrees completely with everything on their side without compromise and with proper research of it.
Wooooooow. This makes me incredibly sad that I work during Colbert now. Wish I would have seen that one.
When are people going to get it? Satan’s not having a field day with MySpace or Wikipedia – he’s taken over the entire INTERNET! EVERYthing is evil, even this site is evil! My own xanga is evil!!! I need to disconnect immediately and throw away my laptop. Hell, ALL technology is evil! Throw out your mobiles and iPods now or be damned!!!!
…….
Conservapedia is like 5000x more biased than Wiki. LOL. Plus it’s completely ridiculous and has less information. So, Wiki!
Thanks happydeviant and TheGreenPanther for your lovely commentary! lol!
I pick Wiki all the way!
I also appreciate the more serious comments on here rejecting Conservapedia… thanks for that you all!
Man, I love the Deviant!
I’m sticking with wiki.
wiki, if truth, honesty, and open information is liberal, then thats for me.
Down with fascist, closed, and censored, conservatives.
Wikipedia. I choose the lesser of two evils.
Wikipedia or die
Moderatepedia
This is insane. how can it have a ‘liberal bias’? Isn’t it just the majority view?