Sent in by Jim E

"The Truth Shall Set You Free" ... as long as the truth conforms to the principles adhered to at Conservapedia.com .

That's right, the right-wing believes that Wikipedia is riddled with non-truth. What Wikipedia strives for–a doggedly open debate about facts–results in what conservatives feel is a liberal bias. How very interesting. And so, Conservapedia was born.

The Los Angeles Times covered an article in today’s paper about this.

It fascinates me for several reasons.

First, this new wiki is frought with outright lies mixed with a good deal of status quo truth. This will cause it to appear as a viable resource to some, and result in the spread of misinformation. This is exactly the type of thing people fear from the original Wikipedia, but which hasn’t manifested itself to any great extent. Until now.

Second, it appears as if the Religious Right (truly the term "conservatives" would be too broadly applied here) have so thoroughly gone off the deep end that they require a parallell set of resource tools to corroborate their story. I can see it now: radical right-wing Senators will be quoting Conservapedia as a credible source on the floor of Congress. The resulting uproar would appear as hair-splitting.

Third, this causes me grave concern. It is appearing more and more as if America has two distinct cultural groups. I may sound like an alarmist here, but the last time the country was so polarized that the two groups could not agree on how words are to be defined, the outcome was not pretty. A nation needs a single culture and zeitgeist to be unified. It doesn’t appear that we currently have that.

Fourth, I encourage everyone to contribute facts to Conservapedia, as in their case, the Truth truly Shall Set Them Free.

To monitor comments posted to this topic, use .


Anonymous said...

Whack-o-Pedia is right. I looked at their entries for Homosexuality, Atheism, and Agnosticism. Interesting that the "survey" they quoted as havint 47% say they'd oppose their child marrying an Atheist also had 27% opposing marriage to an African-American. Seem they only pollled White, Xian Muricans for their "survey".

Reminds me of the schism over at Democratic Underground when the Woo-Woo members split off and formed "Progressive Underground"...


John of Indiana

Anonymous said...

Hi Jim E.

I am not an American and I don't live in the States. If my comment sounds naive to you, that will be the reason.

In Canada, at the citizenship ceremony, they encourage people to keep their culture and their traditions. At my ceremony, we were told to love our home countries and to preserve our values because they represent who we really are.

Your post--which I enjoyed--ends with a desire to have a unified culture in the United States.

My question is, is that really possible? Given that the United States, like all the other industrialized nations, has a multicultural community?

Just wondering.

Anonymous said...

I looked up atheism and followed the external link to creationwiki. That article on atheism is even spookier to me, since they claim many (who?) believe atheism causes mental illness and metal illness is the result of being an atheist.

Can they have it both ways?

I have not come out to many people, for many reasons,but one is the dread of being demonized simply for my lack of belief.


nm156 said...

Interesting. Looks like some people went off the deep end.

I think you can get a good feel of the site just by looking at the 'Debate topics' section, where nearly every topic is mysteriously connected to a Christian issue. Something that caught my eye in the religious debates section.
"Is the Pope the Antichrist?"
Of course when I clicked the link it said the entry had been deleted. Go figure. Funny though, I thought Catholics were Christian. Guess it's not sufficient anymore to claim belief in Jesus. You have to believe in whatever brand of Christianity they espouse.

I honestly don't know why they wasted the time creating different categories for the debates.
A couple of my favorites: "Why are God's works always questioned?" under 'scientific debates' and "Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?" under 'political debates.'

The word 'ridiculous' doesn't even begin to do justice.

Anonymous said...

Luckily, the name says it all. Few folks looking for an unbiased source will use this. Still, how ridiculous. Wikipedia is not perfect, but it is the result of mass collaboration. People can debate issues until they are blue in the face, and the wiki reflects that. You can easily tag an article as "potentially biased." It would be a joke if you could do that on "Conservapedia"!

Really, though, it disturbs me that folks are promoting such a schism. Perhaps the fact that I'm pretty liberal clouds my perception, but Wikipedia has always seemed neutral overall. These folks are so dissatisfied with the wonderful ideas behind Wikipedia- in other words, so dissatisfied with the results of mass collaboration and knowledge compliation- that they have to start their own, admittedly skewed "encyclopedia"? I find that very disturbing.

Can you tell I'm a loyal Wikipedian? ;)

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to say that I don't think Canada has a personality. Thats not an insult but when I think of any other country certain assumptions come to mind as to its people. Outside of Quebec and the Quebecois how would you describe the average Canadian? Canadian culture was never forged out of trial and conflict and never fought for its right to exist.The United States culture has been referred to a "melting pot" in which everything going in meshes together to become one. The differnce extends to the government styles as well. The US has a strong central government and Canada has a weak central government with the provinces holding more power in most circumstances.

nm156 said...


I am rather fond of Wikipedia as well. In most everything I have seen, it usually lets the reader know when there is a lack of citation or if the article can be improved, etc. I appreciate that it strives to be secular.

I am inclined to agree with you that your liberalism may cloud your perception. Wikipedia aims to be secular; you simply interpret this as 'neutral,' but to the Christian this may reek of liberalism, atheism or something thereof. Hence the need for 'Conservapedia.'

I think one of other main things they object to is that Wikipedia does not feature a daily Bible verse to remind them that they are still Christian.

Anonymous said...

"The US has a strong central government and Canada has a weak central government with the provinces holding more power in most circumstances."

All systems of government have advantages and disadvantages. My question to Jim E. was in no way an affirmation that Canada is better than the U.S. It was just an honest question about how he feels his dream of uniting the culture can be accomplished.

But I do not believe that the U.S. has succeeded in creating a melting pot. The racial polarization I've observed there is extreme and not something I would want to be part of.

Yukkione said...

Wow, look up the term evolution and you get a long expose on young earth, creation scinece and theology. here is what conservopedia says about the the page:

Student Panel's Decision

After much debate, the Conservapedia Panel has finished reviewing the Theory of Evolution page. We have determined that the article will remain protected indefinitely, to protect it from inevitable vandalism. We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution.

Anonymous said...

No Canada-bashing around here, please! And I agree, the USA is not a melting pot. Besides, I like the tossed salad metaphor better. Apparently, Canada does too.

John of Indiana, I live in IN too, in Indy. What about you?

nm156, thanks for your reply. Good points!

Joe B said...

I know it's off topic, but Canada's multi-culturalism is a model that is worth studying and emulating wherever conditions of tolerance can be established. Seems like they pour all of their intolerance into hockey.

On-topic, this sort of media outlet for distorted ideas is just another channel for preaching to the converted. People looking for objective information will continue to turn away from FoxNews and Conservapedia, but these things serve to promote party unity and ignorant conservative newspeak. That's double plus ungood.

Anonymous said...

Jim, a "doggedly open debate about the facts" is always fun.

But thats not what you get at Wikexpedient!

They are dominated by anti Christian moderators, who sure as HELL are going to detete you or make sure you are swarmed by watch dogs for the party line.

Who ya kiddin, boy?

webmdave said...

I will not submit... (AKA: Anti-Atheist) makes another immature remark.

Run along, kid.

Anonymous said...

Canadian girls rock in the sack... And isn't that enough to respect a country?


Anonymous said...


Your question is a good one. I supposed I didn't make my point very well. America will always represent a "tossed salad" of ideologies. The over-riding cultural ideology, however, has always been reason and tolerance--even if it were grudging at times.

Anonymous said...

Canadian girls rock in the sack... And isn't that enough to respect a country?

Amen to that!

Anonymous said...

I love this. I did s search for God on whackopedia, and had to click on "other gods" to find this statement.

"As opposed to the true God, other gods have been proposed throughout the history of mankind. The term god is applied in a general sense to any deity that is worshiped as part of a theistic belief system.


Anonymous said...

Conservapedia Commandment number four:

"# When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE."

Har har!! -Wes.

Anonymous said...


Oh, no!! And these people are serious!! Help us all if this mentality catches on!!! Ha ha ha!!

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Wes. I didn't know that using BCE and CE in date citations pisses off the fundibots. Now that I know, I'll never use BC or AD again.

Anonymous said...

Yes, thanks Wes!
As a rule I never use date references that validate the absurdity of christianity, however, if BCE and CE will piss them off..................I'm in!


Anonymous said...

No problem! Any little thing counts!! Hee hee! -Wes (since 1976CE) :-)

Pageviews this week: