Does anyone, really, take Conservapedia seriously?

Discussion in 'Education' started by Darth Desolas, Feb 26, 2011.

  1. Darth Desolas

    Darth Desolas New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasn't sure where to put this but please move if not appropriately located. :)

    As in the title, does anyone, in all honesty, take the blatant lies, disturbingly twisted concepts and straight up crazy that is Conservapedia seriously?

    If so, why?

    Do other politically right-of-center members here find it to be a sick display of the self appointed infallible and unalterable mindset that has beset the extreme ends of our political spectrum?

    And one other question I suppose would be, are there similarly disgusting online monstrosities like Conservapedia on the left? Is there a "Progressapedia?" that someone can show me so I don't feel so ashamed that places like Conservapedia will be grouped with myself politically?

    And no, Wikipedia doesn't count as an example.
     
  2. Darth Desolas

    Darth Desolas New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2011
    Messages:
    735
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess I'll take that as a "no."
     
  3. NaturalBorn

    NaturalBorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,256
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You must believe Wikipedia is accurate and objective.
     
  4. BuckNaked

    BuckNaked New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    12,335
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is actually pretty interesting;
     
    Here is what the conservapedia says about wikipedia…
     
     
     
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia
     
     
    …and here is what Wikipedia says about conservapedia.
     
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
     
     
    Just like everything else they both seem to have a realistic level of bias. :lol:


    Both/neither would not be or should be considered a legitimate sources but the sources listed in the bottom of each page provide many legitimate sources that have been picked through to reach a particular conclusion. If you go to some of those sources you can use these illegitimate sources as a starting point if nothing else.
     
  5. Autolycus

    Autolycus New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree that there is liberal bias on wikipedia, but I can't agree with Conservapedia's views. This (*)(*)(*)(*) is written by american christians, and as I am neither American nor christian, i can't believe anything written there. The funniest example is the article about evolution.:-D
     
  6. Caeia Iulia Regilia

    Caeia Iulia Regilia New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't trust any "pedia" that just anyone can edit. I think there is ruin on the commons because no one is truely responsible for the content. If Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, it's on the editor's head. If Wikipedia or Conservopedia is wrong, no one is responsible.

    Conservopedia looks like what a Soviet Encyclopedia might look like, except that rather than bias toward Communism, it's biased toward Regan Conservatism.

    on unions
    http://www.conservapedia.com/American_labor_unions

    And our President. Supposedly born in honolulu...
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Barack_Obama
     
  7. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Creatards take Conservapedia seriously.
     
  8. GeddonM3

    GeddonM3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    20,175
    Likes Received:
    307
    Trophy Points:
    83
    about as seriously as i take anything a liberal says.
     
  9. bdavison

    bdavison New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I just use Wikipedia because it is 1000x more reliable than the "trustworthy encyclopedia". They call global warming a hoax, and the Democrats communist. They also say Hitler was a leftist.
     
  10. bdavison

    bdavison New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well I am both American and Christian, but I agree with you 100%
     
  11. speedingtime

    speedingtime Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,220
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Conservapedia article on Liberals is pure comedy.
     
  12. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,299
    Likes Received:
    4,334
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not too bad, provided you stay away from politically charged topics. In terms of basic science, it's about as accurate as Encyclopedia Brittanica.
     
  13. BuckNaked

    BuckNaked New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    12,335
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Copy and paste is such a valuable tool.
     
  14. PatrickT

    PatrickT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    16,573
    Likes Received:
    396
    Trophy Points:
    83
    As seriously as I take the New York Times.
    As seriously as I take MSNBC.
    As seriously as I take Al Sharpton.
    As seriously as I take Michael Moore or his "mockumentaries".
    As seriously as I take anything the President Obama says.
     
  15. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would not know about a political label of such. I am not one to align myself with a political party or pigeon hole anyone for their political beliefs. Freedom to think and evaluate are the key for political analysis, that is not based on a political party or label. Often people are obedient followers/worshipers/beggers/prayers, and they hop on a band wagon with no real ability to evaluate any political situation. Hence they become marks for manipulation and propaganda.
     
  16. KAMALAYKA

    KAMALAYKA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,668
    Likes Received:
    990
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wikipedia is not biased.

    If you would like a left-wing website, might I suggest one of the kkk sites? The majority of them are atheists/moral relativists.
     
  17. Sab

    Sab Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Any Wiki is only as good as its contributors. Wikipedia does have its biases on vaious subjects and not necessairly the same bias.

    Conservapedia tends to be extremely poorly researched. Wikipedia is agreat deal better but it has certainbly had its problems with Activist editors and articles on people on teh right have a lot more entires in he 'criticisms;' section than people on the left (and if you agree that that is how it should be then you have a problem with the NPOV ideal
     
  18. Clint Torres

    Clint Torres New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    75
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I was a religious person, I would believe anything that was simple. As long as it says god or jeasus said.

    It should be written at a 12 year old level. Simple one logic idology.
     
  19. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    38,233
    Likes Received:
    28,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Conservapedia was started because facts tend to have a "liberal bias" that are anathema to extremist rightwing conservatives.

    It is interesting to note that among all of the conservative parties in the modern western democracies only the GOP opposes global climate change. Conservatives in the rest of the world are not held hostage to their extremist fringe element.

    Conservapedia is nothing more than an attempt to "legitimize" the extremism of the hard right in this nation. It has a distinct political bias and doesn't even pretend to be "objective".

    On the other hand Wikipedia does not claim to be infallible and the fact that it is open to editing is part of what makes it relevant. Having grown up with hard copy encyclopedias that were out of date before they were even printed it is necessary in this day and age to have a source that can be edited as our knowledge base grows ever larger on a daily base all around the world. Wikipedia is doing as good a job as is possible under the circumstances.

    Conservapedia, on the other hand, would prefer that we returned to the dark ages when reading and writing were confined to only those who could pay through the nose for an education that was provided along with religious indoctrination.

    In this post Guttenberg era we are the informed electorate that Jefferson said was a requirement in order to make our system of government work. At least a majority of us try to be that way. Conservapedia is pulling in the opposite direction for purely partisan political reasons.
     
  20. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    38,233
    Likes Received:
    28,939
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Link_requested.GIF

    Would you please provide credible substantiation that "atheists/moral relativists" endorse the KKK?

    TYIA
     

    Attached Files:

  21. rocker65

    rocker65 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2015
    Messages:
    866
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    43
    On the subject of birthright citizenship, Wikipedia, refers to Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the 14th amendment. It also gives his quotation about the children of foreigners to not be eligible for US citizenship, when born in the USA. Then it gives a footnote, which when clicked, gives a photograph of a very old, yellow-stained copy of the US Congressional Record of May 30, 1866, quoting Howard saying those exact words. It doesn't get more LEGITIMATE than that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
     
  22. Phyxius

    Phyxius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,953
    Likes Received:
    4,443
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

Share This Page