Conservapedia – I reject your reality and substitute my own

Tired of Wikipedia’s liberal bias? How about the newly launched Conservapedia. The Conservapedia complains about the liberal bias of wikipedia and to combat this they have created their own biased encyclopaedia. Interesting idea.

The site has a set of rules known as The Commandments (seriously, I’m not joking).

1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
4. 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.
5. As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.[1]
6. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.

Most of the Ten Commandments, sorry, The Commandments are pretty sensible. Number four is a bit strange and as you read more of the Conservapedia, you’ll see that they are absolutely obsessed with the usage of BCE and CE as being a terrible threat to Jesus.

Before I go any further, I should point out that I don’t consider Wikipedia to be perfect. I’ve personally contributed to a few articles and made some corrections. I may well have introduced errors of my own which someone else must fix. Most wikipedia articles do show a decent level of balance.

Since Conservapedia is simply a vehicle for the dissemination of extremist right-wing views, let’s start with a topic close to the conservative heart. Creationism.

Wikipedia – Creationism

You’ll notice several differences.

1) The Conservapedia version is remarkably short considering the complexity of the subject.

2) There is no criticism of Creationism, none at all. No mention of the fact that evolutionary theory, geology and physics all provide strong evidence against young earth creationism in particular. Wikipedia provides both sides.

3) A lack of references. While Wikipedia includes an impressive list of sites to visit, from both sides of the debate, Conservapedia provides five links, four of which are pro-creationism.

4) No analysis of the politics of creationism. No mention of the push to have creationism taught in US schools – a deliberate attempt to breach the separation of church and state.

The Conservapedia is going to achieve what it set out to do. It will provide a warm and fuzzy feeling for the fundamentalists who feel that their way of life is being threatened by the liberal conspiracy.

It is true that bias exists in the media but this ‘liberal conspiracy’ simply doesn’t exist. Couid anyone honestly claim that the Guardian and Fox News are pursuing the same agenda?

The reason why there appears to be a liberal bias is because the fundamentalists see their cherished yet irrational and dangerous beliefs being challenged by cold facts and this scares them. When a magazine prints an article about evolution, a theory that is almost universally accepted and proven within the scientific community, it is seen as an attack on their sky god. The conservative Christians will come out in their droves to denounce this shameless un-American atheism.

Conservapedia is aimed at conservatives, with an emphasis on the millions of children who are being home-schooled. I pity these poor sods and moments like this make me understand why Richard Dawkins considers the indoctrination of children to be a form of child abuse. If the deliberate stunting of the intellectual of children and the perpetuation of bronze-age myths as fact isn’t child abuse, I don’t know what is.

For further reading, I suggest you visit the following Conservapedia links. Compare them to their counterparts on Wikipedia and note the Conservapedia’s abuse of hearsay, selective evidence and the assumption that the Christian God of The American People is the one true god.

CE (Enjoy the paranoia)

My apologies to Adam Savage of Mythbusters fame for abusing his quote in the title of this post.


2 Responses to “Conservapedia – I reject your reality and substitute my own”

  1. Church Website Design Professional Says:

    This is a very interesting idea. Nice read, thanks for sharing the info! Not only do we conservatives and Christian people need to openly let our beliefs be known, we also need to live them! May God bless you and your readers.

  2. Sean Kehoe Says:

    Hmm, I suspect that this comment is spam but in the interests of free speech, I’ve allowed it to be posted. Never let it be said that this site isn’t willing to post the Christian side of things and endorsements of right-wing lunatic sites such as Conservapedia.

Leave a Reply to Sean Kehoe Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: