religious right launch xian 'alternative' to Wikipedia

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Religious right launches rival to 'un-American' Wikipedia

Praise The Lord and pass the encyclopaedia
By Andrew Thomas
Friday 02 March 2007, 10:29

DINOSAURS. They may not exist, but they're just launched their own online encyclopaedia. Conservapedia claims to be 'a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American.'

Rather than having anything as mundane as posting rules, Conservapedia has Commandments. The first Commandment is ' Everything you post must be true and verifiable.' Strange that, I always thought it was 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' But Conservapedia is 'the encyclopedia you can trust' ? apart from knowing how to spell 'encyclopaedia', obviously ? so I must be mistaken. Oooh, hang on, Commandment Five says that American spelling of words must be used. And as everyone knows, both Jesus and his dad were born in the USA.

Coming back to Conservapedia's First Commandment, it will be interesting to see exactly how any reference to the Bible will be verified as fact. Obviously, as a new site, many subjects have yet to appear, or are in need of expansion. This is the full article on Iraq, for example:

"A Middle-Eastern country, currently occupied by U.S. Troops."

We feel sure that all God-fearing INQUIRER readers will step up to the plate and fill in a few of these gaps for them. If you don't, the turrists will have won. µ

L'INQ

Conservapedia
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,502
136
I don't see a problem with this site, nor do I think calling the creators of this site "religious nuts" is fair. Obviously, there will be a conservative bias on this site, and it will be much more limited than Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't tend to be "anti-Christian" on the whole, but there is what I would consider to be inaccuracies in certain articles, mostly because I have a biblical/Christian view. This is entirely dependent on the people editing the articles, so you will see articles that have a slight bent against other religious groups, people, etc. That's just the way a public encyclopedia works, whether for good or for bad.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Topic: Earth
This is comedy gold! :laugh:
Bible scholars have also estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by R. B. Knox, James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh (usually referred to as Archbishop Ussher) in a book called Annals of the World, in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C.
Which one is it? 6,000 years or 4.5 billion?
 

AbAbber2k

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
6,474
1
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: OOBradm
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

wikipedia "bias list"

hehe, some of those are pathetically weak, like non-US spelling. Others could be easily solved by adding them into Wiki, like misspelled names.

Ridiculous.

Seriously... that was the best they could come up with? 30 pathetic "examples" of bias out of over a million articles. Gosh, how terrible. :roll:
 

ultimatebob

Lifer
Jul 1, 2001
25,134
2,450
126
What can I say... Competition is always a good thing!

If anything, these folks who are nitpicking about about Wikipedia articles will only make them stronger in the future.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
When reality disagrees with your ideology, don't change your mind - make your own reality!
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Look up "evolution", or "big bang". They're laced with religious information which has nothing to do with the actual theories.
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: Crono
I don't see a problem with this site, nor do I think calling the creators of this site "religious nuts" is fair. Obviously, there will be a conservative bias on this site, and it will be much more limited than Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't tend to be "anti-Christian" on the whole, but there is what I would consider to be inaccuracies in certain articles, mostly because I have a biblical/Christian view. This is entirely dependent on the people editing the articles, so you will see articles that have a slight bent against other religious groups, people, etc. That's just the way a public encyclopedia works, whether for good or for bad.

It's most definitely for good. We don't need to inject your religious views into general scientific theories and facts, or we'll get a horribly backwards encyclopedia like this BS.
 
S

SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: silverpig
Look up "evolution", or "big bang". They're laced with religious information which has nothing to do with the actual theories.

Evolution Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Evolution does in fact lower the entropy of the sum of the living DNA on this planet. The mechanism used by evolution to lower entropy is the collection and storage of information about trait survivability on strands of molecules called DNA. The theory of Evolution says that this information collects naturally through non-random selection from offspring variation.

:laugh:
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,976
3
71
This thread smacks of trollage. If the OP doesn't like it, why does he draw more attention to it? So he can troll more like a little bitch.

(I'm guessing)
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
I know you hate Christians and all (wait I'm sorry - "xians"), but this doesn't even deserve a post here. It's not a real competitor to Wikipedia. It's just a crappy website that some guy started that'll never go anywhere. It's not a concerted effort by Christian groups. For X's sake, it was started by a group of homeschooled children!
 
S

SlitheryDee

More funny

Religion

and following up on that...

The Blog of the Gods

Christians used to look to the Bible for God's word, but now they have the Blog of the Gods, which relays His word directly in modern language people can understand. It is also less silly than the Bible.

WTF?
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: mugs
I know you hate Christians and all (wait I'm sorry - "xians"), but this doesn't even deserve a post here. It's not a real competitor to Wikipedia. It's just a crappy website that some guy started that'll never go anywhere. It's not a concerted effort by Christian groups. For X's sake, it was started by a group of homeschooled children!

there is every chance the moneyed supporters of the republican/ religious right establishment will pump money into the project, & it will end up better funded than wikipedia itself. which would be a travesty.