Lounge of Tomorrow - Conservapedia

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - Conservapedia (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=5416)

I wasn't aware of a liberal bias on wikipedia, but apparently the problem is out of control. Thank heavens there is someone out there to bring some truth to the world...

I bring you...

CONSERVAPEDIA!

Quote:

A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.

Conservapedia has over 3,800 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, as well as more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 1,600,000 page views and over 17,100 page edits. Already Conservapedia has become one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet. This site is growing rapidly.

Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Contributions that comply with simple commandments are respected (and improved) to the maximum extent possible. Please improve this website as you use it, and please cite your sources. With your help, Conservapedia will continue to be an online encyclopedia you can trust. This is also a meeting place, and appropriate questions may be posted at Ask questions.

Hmm, let's see a sample, shall we?

Dinosaurs:

Quote:

Most scientists believe that dinosaurs lived from 230 million until 65 million years ago and that they are all currently extinct (except for birds, which many scientists consider to be descended from early therapod dinosaurs). They claim the fossil evidence supports their beliefs. However, there are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. [2] [3] For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur. [4] A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. [5] An expedition which included, Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to point to dinosaurs and man existing [6][7] The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." [8] The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. [9]

Yep...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

I'm no fan of Hillary but to pretend that this is an unbiased entry...jeez.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor (Post 124102)

http://www.conservapedia.com/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

I'm no fan of Hillary but to pretend that this is an unbiased entry...jeez.

That's hilarious!!

I sense this was started by someone who has had their articles and edits on Wikipedia challenged over and over for their bias.

Sheesh, looks like they stole the look and feel of Wikipedia, someone should sue them for trade dress infringement ;) for the website.

I'll take this with just a large a grain of salt as I do on the Wiki entries as well as imdb.

I love this, though. I need to go and look at what they say about NPR now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conservapedia

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation." Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[9] Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

It's this kind of ethnocentrism that makes me want to not be an American.

Well, why it is any less ethnocentric to use British spellings?

Sorry, I guess that's a pointless tangent. As far as Conservapedia goes, anything those wackjobs can do to further gulag and isolate themselves into their own fantasy world, the better.

I'm not saying it's ethnocentric to use a particular country's spelling. I'm saying it's ethnocentric to list use of a particular country's spelling as biased and inappropriate.

Plus, this:

Quote:

even though most English-speaking users are American.

is patently false. There are almost a billion people on this planet who speak English as their first or second language and most of them use British spellings (since they were British colonies until recently). Hell, more Indians speak English than there are Americans.

On controversial political topics Wikipedia does tend to have a "liberal" slant. And on religious topics it also has a (rightfully) skeptical slant. Of course, "conservative science" is as stupid an idea as "socialist biology" was in Russia.

Homosexuality
Evolution
ACLU

Nothing on the Iraq War (I wonder why...).

And this is all they have on President Bush?!?!

:rolleyes:

I misread the part I quotes so it isn't so obviously false as I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear (Post 124148)

And this is all they have on President Bush?!?!

:rolleyes:

Well, remember, if they go with the facts and verified source material, per their own commandments, it makes George look really bad. So instead, they obfuscate by omission.

Oh well.

True, true.

(But that hasn't stopped them in some of the other articles.)

It just seems kind of silly to me. Though they may not say A.D. afterward, there are many, many, many articles on Wikipedia that do use that particular calendar, even without having to say "A.D."

Sheesh.

Winnie the Pooh example of dates

On the other hand, they just got a bunch of hits for our talking about it. Go them and their marketing strategy!

:rolleyes:

I've always hated the semi-dishonesty of academia's switch from BC and AD to BCE and CE.

"It is ethno and religio centrism to use Jesus Christ as the dividing line. So we'll just change the name and continue using the same dividing line. Also, I"m allergic to peanuts so I'm going to start calling them peaches so I won't get sick when I eat them."

They didn't even take the opportunity to correctly affix the dividing line so that 0 A.D. would equal 4 C.E. They deinstitutionalized the naming of Christ and firmly institutionalized the significance of Christ.

It goes to show that you can find just about anything to suit your tastes on the internet.