Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 61:
Line 61: − The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for numerous factual inaccuracies[34][30][38] and factual relativism.[34] Conservapedia has been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective.[4][28] and Theopedia, a wiki covering the Bible.[43] Some writers[who?] have compared it with new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones, such as MyChurch, a Christian version of social networking site MySpace, and GodTube, a Christian version of video site YouTube.[7] Wired magazine noted that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers."[28] Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[36] The Guardian of the United Kingdom has referred to the Conservapedia's politics as "right-wing".[57]+ − Thomas Eugene Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about religion, specifically Christianity, than conservatism and that it "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia" than Wikipedia itself.[12] Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians".[58] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[59] APC magazine perceives this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[33] Conservative and Christian commentator Rod Dreher has been highly critical of the website's "Conservative Bible Project", a planned retranslation of the Bible which Dreher attributes to "insane hubris" on the part of "right-wing ideologues".[60]+ − The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting relativism with the implicit idea that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts".[34] Matthew Sheffield, columnist for The Washington Times and contributor to the conservative Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, argued that conservatives concerned about bias should contribute more often to Wikipedia rather than use Conservapedia as an alternative since he felt that alternative websites like Conservapedia are often "incomplete".[61] Author Damien Thompson says Conservapedia "is to dress up nonsense as science".[62]+ − Allegations of homophobia have also been raised against Conservapedia.[63] Bryan Ochalla, writing for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) magazine The Advocate, referred to the project as "Wikipedia for the bigoted".[64] On the satirical news program The Daily Show, comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality.[65]+ − Opinions criticizing the site rapidly spread throughout the blogosphere around early 2007.[28] Schlafly appeared on radio programs Today on BBC Radio 4[29] and All Things Considered on NPR[6] to discuss the site around that time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC program The Hour for the same purpose.[66]+ − Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about Conservapedia.[10] Matt Barber, policy director for the conservative Christian political action group Concerned Women for America, praised Conservapedia as a more family-friendly and accurate alternative to Wikipedia.[67]+ − − Fighting so called bias with ten fold the bias...Doesn't help your case
Reverted edits by Akm1337 (Talk) to last version by JacobB
==Testimonies and Impact==
==Testimonies and Impact==
Conservapedia has been praised and ridiculed in the [[media]], on [[blog]]s, and on rival sites. Critics claim that it contains fringe viewpoints, and supporters note that it simply provides another viewpoint and an alternative to liberal bias.
*Conservapedia provides information about the [[American]] people that liberal critics would rather hide: for example, nearly 50 percent of Americans reject evolution and embrace [[creationism]], and even more want creationism taught alongside evolution in school. <ref>Bootie Cosgrove-Mather. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution], ''CBS News'', November 22, 2004.</ref> Another example is the fact that atheists- often claiming to be more equipped to help their fellow men than religious people- actually give less to charity than believers, even when church giving is excluded.
*Search results for controversial subjects such as [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] contain Conservapedia links within a few searches and often on the first page.<ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=atheism&btnG=Search atheism - Google Search]</ref><ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=theory+of+evolution&btnG=Search theory of evolution - Google Search]</ref>
*Many biographical articles contain religious references and information about the person’s religion, much more so than Wikipedia. Editor and college student Tasha Jones, ([[User:Taj|Taj]]) said of this aspect, “It gives me a better understanding of how people feel religion relates to our lives.” <ref>Stephanie Simon. [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19 A conservative's answer to Wikipedia], ''Los Angeles Times'', June 19, 2007.</ref>
*Conservapedia is active in political advocacy. For example, it [[charter]]ed a bus for the 2009 [[March for Life]].
*Conservapedia is currently developing a blog for the [[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]. The blog in its prototype form can be found here: http://mindszentyfoundation.blogspot.com/
==See Also==
==See Also==