Changes

== Rapid Expansion of Web Traffic Relative to Many Conservative Websites==

== Rapid Expansion of Web Traffic Relative to Many Conservative Websites==

[[File:TrafficGraph.png|right|300px]]

[[File:TrafficGraph.png|right|300px]]

Conservapedia was listed in May of 2009 as one of the 50 most popular conservative websites in terms of web traffic by the [[conservative]] blog Right Wing News.<ref>http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/the_50_most_popular_websites_o.php</ref>  Considering that Conservapedia was only about 3 years old in May of 2009 and was doing better in web traffic than some veteran conservative websites, the rise in web traffic for Conservapedia during its existence has been quite favorable.  In May of 2009, the website Right Wing News determined with the help of [[Alexa]] data that Conservapedia was ranked 37 out of 50 in terms of its website traffic relative to other popular conservative websites.<ref>http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/the_50_most_popular_websites_o.php</ref> Conservapedia is looking forward to greatly spreading awareness of Conservapedia via the significant expansion of its [[YouTube]] channel subscriber base at [http://www.youtube.com/user/conservapediavideos Conservapediavideos]. [[Conservapediavideos]] will likely soon feature a multitude of excellent conservative videos.

Conservapedia was listed in May of 2009 as one of the 50 most popular conservative websites in terms of web traffic by the [[conservative]] blog Right Wing News.<ref name=popular50>[http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/03/the_50_most_popular_websites_o.php The 50 Most Popular Conservative Websites], ''Right Wing News'', March 16, 2009.</ref>  Considering that Conservapedia was only about 3 years old in May of 2009 and was doing better in web traffic than some veteran conservative websites, the rise in web traffic for Conservapedia during its existence has been quite favorable.  In May of 2009, the website Right Wing News determined with the help of [[Alexa]] data that Conservapedia was ranked 37 out of 50 in terms of its website traffic relative to other popular conservative websites.<ref name=popular50/> Conservapedia is looking forward to greatly spreading awareness of Conservapedia via the significant expansion of its [[YouTube]] channel subscriber base at [http://www.youtube.com/user/conservapediavideos Conservapediavideos]. [[Conservapediavideos]] will likely soon feature a multitude of excellent conservative videos.

==Leadership==

==Leadership==

==Differences with Wikipedia==

==Differences with Wikipedia==

Conservapedia strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the [[fact]]s, which often back up conservative ideas more than [[liberal]] ones.  Rather than claim a neutral point of view and then insert bias, Conservapedia is clear that it seeks to give due credit to conservatism and Christianity. Schlafly said in regard to the point of view issue, "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader." <ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084</ref>

Conservapedia strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the [[fact]]s, which often back up conservative ideas more than [[liberal]] ones.  Rather than claim a neutral point of view and then insert bias, Conservapedia is clear that it seeks to give due credit to conservatism and Christianity. Schlafly said in regard to the point of view issue, "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader." <ref>Robert Siegel. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084 Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?], npr.org, November 29, 2009.</ref>

Wikipedia articles may contain [[trivia]], [[gossip]], profanity, and even [[Pornography|pornographic]]/sexually explicit images.  The latter three are prohibited on Conservapedia and trivia is largely discouraged.

Wikipedia articles may contain [[trivia]], [[gossip]], profanity, and even [[Pornography|pornographic]]/sexually explicit images.  The latter three are prohibited on Conservapedia and trivia is largely discouraged.

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 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>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml</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. <ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272</ref> <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/Religious</ref>

*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</ref><ref>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=theory+of+evolution&btnG=Search</ref>   

*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>http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19</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 active in political advocacy. For example, it [[charter]]ed a bus for the 2009 [[March for Life]].