Conservapedia

Conservapedia is an extremely douchey wiki that contains biased conservative views. It was created with the sole purpose of turning people into apes. Of course, it’s a huge plan to brainwash mankind and have us believe the earth is flat. It could only be thought as an ill-conceived ultra-orthodox Angry Christian site started by a couple of old church ladies in an apparent response to an imagined liberal bias on the part of Wikipedia. (The truth is, to far-right conservatives, it is reality that has a left wing bias -- not Wikipedia, which is actually Conservative or Libertarian biased.)

Conservapedia asserts misinformed opinion as fact. It equates homosexuality with polygamy and liberals with terrorists. A logical response to Conservapedia would sound something like this: "All hail the hypno-toad. Al Gore will lead the liberal nation to glorious empire upon the moon."

It is a fundamentalist Christian wiki encyclopedia project that promotes Biblical creation science and rejects evolution. It is criticized heavily by liberals and anyone else with common sense. It is the subject of ridicule from those who are used to getting information without a heavy dose of fundamentalist hilarity. Its most heavily-viewed pages are about such topics as homosexuality, Wikipedia, and Adolf Hitler. Although Liberapedia is obviously very much against the ethnocentric bias displayed in Conservapedia, we would like to make clear that we respect its right to a free opinion. We usually do not agree with it, but we would at least respect it if its users respected the rights of editors who disagree with Andrew Schlafly.

The very latest silliness at Conservapedia is recorded at Digging the Dirt on the Lunacy that is Conservapedia.

History
Conservapedia was started in early 2006. At first it was mainly written by home-schooled creationist children, making it little better than ... well. Those sad little home-schooled children will suffer all their lives because of their poor education.

The site became more famous than it ever deserved to be when progressives discovered it and trolled it. Progressives began vandalizing it and linking to it from blogs urging people to vandalize or debate with them. This almost certainly accounted for better than two thirds of the hits Conservapedia got at that point.

Later, some scientifically-minded people began trying to inject evolutionary dogma into the site, but it soon ran afoul from Conservapedia's blocking policy (insert leftist bull=a block). Evolution became a battle-ground topic, followed by doughnuts. But the scientists could not hold the line, because although they had the rational arguments, Andrew Schlafly had the computer keys. Schlafly exiled them in what became known as the "Night of the Blunt Knives". Some entered on the long trek to RationalWiki where they first plotted to troll Conservapedia. But later they forgot their proletariat roots and became another bourgeois wiki concerned about its own hit count. Others founded the Almighty Liberapedia wiki you are reading now, which strives to be one of the sources of truth on the Internet.

Meanwhile, Conservapedia continues on its own path of biblical literalism and republicanism, making it a source of "truth" and hilarity.

The only people who go on Conservapedia are people with NO LIFE, or people who love laughing at what they consider the pathetic failure of "statistical analysis" and "the presentation of truth."

Educational value of Conservapedia


Conservapedia, like any encyclopedia (especially those using the open-editing wiki format), is prone to errors. There are plenty of reasons to argue that Conservapedia is actually far inferior to Wikipedia and that its articles are not to be trusted. Conservapedia's math and history articles have been criticized for a plethora of errors, while a numerical comparison of Conservapedia articles with articles in Wikipedia have shown Conservapedia's articles to be lagging in quality.

Conservapedia folks imagine they could actually surpass the folks at Wikipedia in terms of accuracy, coverage and comprehensiveness. After all, founder Andrew Schlafly did intend it to be a home schooling tool -- something that universities and schools do not view Wikipedia is worthy of. However, it appears that (from the wonderfully compact size of blurbs they steal from Conservapedia for extension on Rational Wiki) Conservapedia is too retardated to work for education. They frequently censor users who present evidence that is against their views, and Schlafly fails utterly at spelling.

Blocking Policy
On Conservapedia, you can be blocked for...
 * ...using the wrong sort of English (ie using words that you learned after preschool)
 * ...questioning the opinions of the admins. Some of them are so stupid they can't answer questions
 * ...making a username that an admin disagrees with. That used to mean anything that doesn't praise Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, God or Jesus. Now that means anything except a Christian name and the first letter of a second name.
 * ...trying to discuss ways to improve Conservapedia
 * ...being a non-believer in God
 * ...having a friend who is not Christian
 * ...admitting to using birth control or condoms
 * ...revealing that Fox News isn't Fair and Balanced
 * ...understanding that the American government was wrong about Iraq; Conservapedia pretends you're lying
 * ...knowing that the French are not complete idiots; they are far less silly than Conservatives
 * ...saying that the UK was a strong nation during WWII, and that America wasn't necessarily the best of them all
 * ...realizing that Christianity, a religion that says you should not kill, has caused millions of people to die over the last thousand years (crusades, inquisitions, lynchings, holocausts, etc.)
 * ...making a typo in your edit

...Mention FBI in anywhere (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehQD_-m40Tg&feature=related)


 * Note: If you question Andy, he will brand you as a liberal. Perfectly sane people understand that questioning is at the heart of democracy, but Andy prefers obedience from all.

Note: On Conservapedia it is even possible to reach a state of limbo, in which you are not blocked but are not allowed to edit any pages. This will occur if you have a Conservapedia account from which you don't speak your mind (which would lead to the usual block) and which you use to correct the frequent grammar/spelling errors that tend to crop up when Conservapedians spew feces from their mouths/minds/keyboards all over their beloved site and call it "trustworthy." It is possible that this will only occur if you are logged in from said valid account from an IP that has previously been banned and many important Internet Service Providers are range blocked.

What to do if they block you
After you have joined the two aforementioned wikis, take the following steps, which will work provided your Internet Service Provider gives you a dynamic IP Adress:
 * Join Liberapedia
 * Join Rational Wiki
 * Write about what's wrong with Constipedia Controlfreakapedia Conservapedia at either of the two above Wikis. They can't block you for what you write away from the Conservapedia banhammer. They can't revert it either, that's cool.


 * Log out of Conservapedia.
 * Unplug modem from the wall and go to sleep. Alternatively, switch off the modem. Wait a minute or so. Switch it back on. That changes a dynamic IP Address. Some Internet Service Providers change your IP every few hours. Others change the IP every time you switch off.
 * Wake up in morning, walk downstairs in your jammies, and drink a steamy cup of hot cocoa. Be sure to include marshmallows.
 * Replug modem to the wall and look at your new IP address. Alternatively, look at your new IP Adress a minute after you switched the modem back on.
 * Go back to Confarceapedia Conservapedia with a sockpuppet and let MAndy, Ed Poop, Bungler, and JPratt know what you think of them.
 * Wait for blocking.
 * Repeat as needed.
 * PROFIT!!!!
 * PROFIT!!!!

''Note that Conservapedia has restarted using range blocks. The above may not work as well as it used to. ''

If you have a static IP Adress or if you are range blocked, or if you don't want to be range blocked, look for proxies. However, most proxies have been blocked, so the absolute best tool is Tor. Tor is a dynamic IP that no block, range, IP, or username can stop.

Conservapedia says:
All of these need citations!


 * 1) All kangaroos are descended from a single pair who were on Noah's Ark.
 * 2) Gravity is an unproven theory.
 * 3) Einstein's General Relativity "has nothing to do with physics".
 * 4) Only followers of Christianity are capable of religious faith.
 * 5) Atheists are incapable of being moral.
 * 6) Jews are "touchy" about the Holocaust.
 * 7) Some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.
 * 8) The Beach Boys are an example of heavy metal.
 * 9) There were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.
 * 10) The Earth is the center of the universe
 * 11) Rock music causes riots.
 * 12) McCarthyism was good.
 * 13) Ann Coulter is hot and spicy.
 * 14) Belief in the Theory of Relativity leads to a belief in moral relativity (a bad thing).
 * 15) Dinosaurs are "generally believed" to be extinct.
 * 16) "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell."
 * 17) Homosexuality can cause bad smoking habits.
 * 18) Barack Hussein Obama is both a Communist, an Atheist and a Muslim.
 * 19) HUSSEIN Obama has not provided a birth certificate. (It's Hussein now. Edit and you will be removed!)
 * 20) Osama Bin Laden is an Iraqi
 * 21) No one who believes that the Christian God has ever killed anyone.
 * 22) Hitler was "an evolutionary racist"
 * 23) In the commandments, it explicitly forbids using BCE and CE, it wants to use BC and AD.
 * 24) It is impossible for Conservative Christians be bigoted. [4]
 * 25) JFK was a conservative.

"Vandalism"
Inserting irrefutable facts as facts is considered vandalism at Conservapedia. In fact, most of Conservapedia's vandalism is actually people removing blatant falsehoods and misrepresented facts.

Censorship
There are a miriad of examples of censorship on Conservapedia.

Mention of Rational Wiki is strictly forbidden. On this link you can see JPatt (Conservapedia's security guard) deleting JewishConservative's (Conservapedia user) user page content which mentions RW.

After that, JewishConservative asks JPatt why he deleted the mention of RW on his page and whether sysops are allowed to do that. JPatt answers him by saying that is a rule (...Mentioning those rats is forbidden here... it is a rule.). JewishConservative asks him to post a link to the rule that forbidds the mention of RW. JPatt replies that is an unwritten rule.

If you don't believe this occured, well... I'm going to supply you with a link.

Then, in order to help, TK tells JC to check out ''Conservapedia:Administrators Administrators and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.'' However, there is still nothing there that mentions anything about the sysops' right to remove the mentions of RW.

Suggested Course of Action
Note: When it's bed time in America, Conservapedia disallows edits, claiming that "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit". If you're outside the United States, you don't count as far as Andrew Schlafly is concerned, and you must wait until someone has woken up over there and allowed edits again.

Except for 4 things:
 * Don't Go To Conservapedia Any More.


 * 1) Comedic relief. But even then, on any given page there is a 30% chance of headdesk from loss of faith in humanity.
 * 2) To support the Liberal Revolution against Conservapedia! If you want to join in, simply create an account. It should NOT contain the word Liberal or anything that is liberal-y. Instead, place words that inspire "warm fuzzies" in Conservatives, such as JesusLover4evr or ReaganResurrected. Or choose something simple that won’t attract attention. At the moment Conservapedia insists on a first name with the first letter of a second name in capitals. So just choose a nice sounding Christian first name. It can be your real sex or the other sex. That way, they won't suspect a thing, and they will be stunned when you start to VANDALIZE!! Those old church ladies will never defeat the amazing powers of mass spam, and perhaps break a hip when trying to fix it! They will be resigned when you start to VANDALIZE!! They get more vandalism than other contributions.
 * 3) You might be a diabolical reader who knows how to internet-method-act. If so, they make a perfectly innocuous username on CP, make perfectly innocuous mainspace edits, and don't put anything inflamatory on your userpage. Then IMITATE ANDY and use such methods as the Schlafly Reversal and the Schlafly Liberalator and protect the "truth" in key debates. Don't EVER question Andy. Do this for a year or so, adding content and bashing "liberals" using "logic," and perhaps Andy will make you a sysop. When he promotes you, be sure to thank Andy profusely, then send our warm fuzzy notices to the other admins. Wait one to two days doing perfectly normal Conservapedia sysop-type things, such as making full use of the Schlafly Rearguard. Then... GO INSANE! PROTECT EVERYTHING! BLOCK EVERYONE! SPAM THE ADMINS! It'll be the ultimate vengeance! You'll be welcomed into Liberapedia with fanfare. RationalWiki will celebrate you as a hero. Start right away! But don't do anything malicious, or you might just get "refered to the authorities." DON'T EVER MENTION THE FBI INCIDENT.
 * 4) Edit some obscure articles and indirectly indicate that the Earth is older than twice the bristle cone pine tree's lifespan. NEVER question God's existence, even though we know there is no God (at least in the way as conservatives see it). You will be forming "islands of safety", places where Conservapedia is true.

Hypocrisy
Conservapedia is riddled with sad hypocrisy. Click here to view the ever growing article.

Racism and sexism
Because blacks and females are statistically more progressive than conservative, Conservapedia appears racist. Their article on Barack Obama refers to him as the first "Affirmative Action" President. The article on Condoleezza Rice, however, takes a very positive view of her, with absolutely zero criticism. It appears that Conservapedia focuses more on slandering the Democrats and supporting the Republicans than being racist/sexist, as they never complain about Rice being black.

On the other hand, they really can't stand Muslims, claiming that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims", and include "Osama bin Laden" in the "Notable Muslim" list.

Andrew Schlafly went to university with Obama and outsiders can only guess at what resentments have been festering for decades over that. See Barack Obama compared to Andrew Schlafly. Conservapedia was created around the time that people were beginning to notice that Obama might run for President.

Disdain for the letter "U"
In England, words such as "color" and "humor" are spelt with extra u's; "colour" and "humour." While Liberapedia accepts this, as several editors here are British, "English-English" spellings on Conservapedia are classed as anti-American. This also applies to spellings using the letter s rather than z, as in "organisation" rather than "organization." It is believed this stems from the editors' beliefs that the letters "U" and "S" should not be used excessively without the letter "A", thus completing the abbreviation: USA.

Young Earth Creationist View on Conservapedia
Young Earth Creationists believe Conservapedia is run by a coterie of ultra-liberal conservationists determined to drive conservatives away from religion with an editorial policy that insures every article on the site makes out that all Christians are irrational airheads. The YEC community also believes that the liberal deceit in every article on the site is designed to persuade conservatives that homeschooling inevitably produces illiterate fanatics. Prominent spokespeople for the YEC and Homeschooling movement have pointed to passages in Revelations that predict an evil twin will be created as a mirror image of The One True Wikipedia for the purpose of leading the faithful astray and into the clutches of the Evil One.

Notable Subtleties
Sometimes NeoconPedia isn't so obvious with its rants. The Article on Jew has a section called "Life Cycle", as if they are talking about a species of animal. Going around calling Jews animals may be biologically true, but it appears derogatory and racist. We at Liberapedia wonder whether Conservapedia believes all humans are animals.

The article on Ramadan states that many muslims "spend several hours praying and studying the Qur'an," implying excessive devoutness. Christians that go to church several times a week aren't excessively devout, are they?

The Hitler article slanders the theory of evolution. Using even more faulty Conservative logic, Conservapedia blames the United States' "early" loss in the Round of 16 at the World Cup on "feminism having eliminated soccer at Division I colleges." Rather than trying to scapegoat women, we at Liberapedia know the real answer: America has consistently fared better in baseball than soccer.