

Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount (2008) - shrikant
http://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles/

======
spodek
At first I thought Conservopedia must have something like Wikipedia's Neutral
Point of View and No Original Research policies that would suggest it wouldn't
get involved in research. Then I realized with a name like Conservopedia, it
must _not_ have a Neutral Point of View.

I was curious what they have instead of a Neutral Point of View, so I looked
it up. On its page "How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia" --
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia...](http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia)
\-- it lists this relevant policy:

"We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts."

Talking about "conservative facts" speaks for itself and says a lot.

Its Guidelines page -- <http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines>
\-- says

"Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons."

The Arstechnica article says "Several of those individuals are apparently now
ex-Conservapedia members, having had their accounts blocked for
insubordination," implying Conservopedia is overstepping its guidelines. This
instance sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. If people within
Conservopedia discuss Conservopedia, why would someone block mere discussion?

------
jstalin
To demonstrate how obsessively out of whack the conservapedia folks are, note
that "Homosexual Agenda" is the top article, after the home page. I remember a
few years ago that all of the top 10 were related to homosexuality. They must
have changed their ranking to demote things that used to be there.

The article on the Homosexual Agenda claims that the "homosexual agenda" is
the greatest threat to free speech today. Not SOPA, DOMA, the NSA, or
secretive international agreements on the regulation of the Internet.... it's
homosexuals.

------
hp50g
I've never seen Conservapedia before.

It wasn't until about 5 minutes after reading some of it, I realised it wasn't
some parody like Uncyclopedia.

I'm utterly shocked that the human race actually is possible of pumping out
shite of that grade.

I'm in the UK BTW so I'm not that aware of American politics so my ignorance
may come from there.

------
qompiler
Uncyclopedia has reported to fully support Conservapedia's stand on this
issue.

------
codeka
Wait, I thought Conservapedia was a joke?

~~~
33a
No, Conservapedia is deadly serious. The guy who operates it (Andrew Schlafly)
is a real piece of work. And apparently it runs in the family too, since his
mom (Phyllis Schlafly) is the main reasons the equal rights amendment got shot
down:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly>

A pretty big WTF there.

~~~
jiggy2011
I wonder how much of their traffic and contributors are genuine conservatives
or just people who want to troll/laugh at conservatives?

The real comedy gold is in the "talk" pages, I remember some years ago a
person tying to make an argument that the Al-Qaeda page should begin "Al-Qaeda
is a liberal organisation..".

