A conservative encyclopedia you can trust. - (tag line on the main page)
Launched November 22, 2006, Conservapedia was going to chart a bold new course in the information wars. No longer could conservatives be shouted down by legions of liberally biased wiki admins! No, damn it, they were going to take their ball and go home.
So how are they doing? The phrase "an embarrassment of riches" comes to mind, but it might be better stated as "a wealth of embarrassments"
Well, first off, as of April 16, 2007, Conservapedia boasts 7700 articles of Reaganesque goodness. Contrast that to the paltry 1,741,782 articles of Wikipedia English (naturally Conservapedia is only in English). For what it's worth, they're totally trashing the Afrikaans Wiki, with it's 6,923 articles. So there, Boers.
Well perhaps a straight numerical comparison is unfair. After all, Wikipedia has had a lot longer to ramp up. Checking out Wiki's own history, they're really not so far off par from Wikipedia's original growth figures. After all, they have a cadre of home schoolers churning out articles. In any case, what they lack in quantity, they have more than made up for in quality. Did I say "quality"? I meant "atrocity", sorry.
The Republican Party Article
Ahh, a logical article to Start with. What do they have to say about themselves?
Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, which supported slavery.
Ah yes, back when the Republican party was the more liberal party, they were actually on the right side of issues. See, they yearn to return to those days. It's not so hard guys, there's plenty of room to the left of the Democrats for another major party. It's nice, and the best part is you can live with yourself.
In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. This symbol still appears on Indiana ballots.
The Freudian jokes write themselves. Really guys, would it have been so hard to use "rooster"? Actually, part of me wonders if this line wasn't written by someone with a sense of humour who can't stand the conservapedia policy against "obscenity." At least they do say "Democratic."
With the end of the Civil War came the upheavals of Reconstruction under Democratic President Andrew Johnson (who had bitter disputes with the Republicans in Congress, who eventually impeached him) and Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican.
Nothing really wrong with this bit, I just never realized that Grant, hither to now considered the most corrupt President ever was preceeded by a Democrat who was impeached by a hostile Republican congress. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, huh?
Anyway, here's a really good bit:
Any enduring Republican majority, however, was put on hold when the Watergate Scandal forced Richard Nixon to resign under a threat of impeachment created by elements within the Democratic Party opposed to U.S efforts to fight communist totalitarianism.
There you go folks. Watergate had nothing to do with Nixon being a crook, it was those dastardly Dems opposed to fighting communism! If this was Wikipedia, you could remove that line for not having a citation, but really, I don't doubt the author could find a Washington Times or CNS news piece to back that up. It's pretty funny as far as denying reality goes.
Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon under the 25th Amendment and struggled to forge a political identity separate from his predecessor. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976, a Washington outsider who would later be regarded as the worst president of the 20th century.
Oh and Carter is "regarded" as the worst pres of the 20th. Not Nixon, or Hoover or even LBJ. Nope. No cite required, this is just common-dog for these guys.
In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia
Guess I spoke too soon earlier on the "ic" thing. Old habits die hard for these guys.
On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq.
I had intended to talk about a bunch of articles in this diary, but this one article is providing even more grist than I had expected. So Saddam was harbouring all kinds of terrorists, which is why the Mission wasn't quite accomplished when Commander Codpiece took his stroll down the deck of an Aircraft carrier. I don't really know why this paragraph belongs in an article generally about the Republican party, but I guess they know deep down Iraq is going to be a lead weight on them for many years, so they can't help rationalizing the failure.
On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected emphatically, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator John Kerry, carried a mere 19 states and the District of Columbia, earning him 251 Electoral College votes and only 48 percent of the popular vote to Bush's 51 percent, the first popular majority since his father was elected in 1988. That election also marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.
I'm including this to comment on just how un-encyclopedic the whole venture is. Seriously, it is chalk full of this type of congratulatory masturbation. "Re-elected emphatically" - yup, that 51% tidal wave guys. Keep in mind, this is shit they're writing for themselves. Not for us, or for the media. They really do believe their own hype. No wonder they were stunned a 51% "landslide" wasn't enough to kill the New Deal.
Presidential dominance
In terms of winning presidential elections, the Republican Party has been the most successful political party in U.S. history. Since the American Civil War, Grover Cleveland is the only non-incumbent Democrat who has won the office of President of the United States under "ordinary" circumstances (meaning no third party, no Great Depression, no disputed count in Illinois, no assassination of the previous president, no Watergate).
[...]
John F. Kennedy (the next Democratic non-incumbent to win the White House) won the 1960 election as the result of voter fraud in Chicago (and several other locations), with a mere 0.2% difference in the popular vote.
I really don't know what to say. A giant apologetic to hand wave away the fact that Democrats win the Presidency sometimes too. Also note that apparently Kennedy's 1960 victory is now confirmed as fraudulent, even though Illinois going Republican wouldn't have changed the result. Every time the Democrats win, it's just some circumstance beyond their control. Oh, except for good ol Grover "Steamer" Cleveland. He could beat the GOP.
Ok, one more gem relating to this article, in the discussion page:
That's certainly news to me. Most historical analysis has shown that FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression much longer than it otherwise would have been. Too bad this article is locked so people can't correct the liberal bias in it.--Conservateur 14:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Seriously, I had thought I would occasionally need to go and research some links to refute their claims, but every single item is either non-controversial at best (so and so won the election of 1908, this act was passed in 1922 etc) or laughably false and/or unencyclopedic. But here on conservapedia, failing to state (as a matter of fact) that the New Deal prolonged the depression is an example of "liberal" bias. In their own encyclopedia.
Ok, I spent way too long on that one article, so let's see a couple more small examples of the comedy gold here.
The Conservapedia Commandments they really call them "commandments" and I can't tell if they're being funny
- When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis.
Did Colbert write this one? Satire lapped by conservative reality again. Conservatives: 1 Satire: 0
Remember kids, no point calling yourself a "conservative" if you're a non-Christian. Your pagan dating systems "deny the historical basis."
Differences with Wikipedia
Laced thoughout the site, are dozens of self-congratulatory references to how much better than Wikipedia they are. Kind of like how the Republican party article is mostly about the various ways they think they're better than Democrats. They seem to have no indepedent concept of self-worth, it only exists in competition with others.
- We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.
Oh really? Like how Watergate was a commie sympthaszing conspiracy? Or that the New Deal dragged out the depression? Or that Illinois was stolen by JFK in 1960?
- We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then we use the label "terrorist" but Wikipedia will use the "neutral" term "militant".
Good policy. Let's see their article on Iran-contra for a second:
The Iran-Contra Affair (also called the Iran-Contra Scandal, the Iran-Contra Matter and Iran-gate) was the result of an arms deal between the United States, Iran and the Nicaraguan Contras, an anti-communist group operating against the Marxist government of Nicaragua. [...] The proceeds from this arms sale were then used to purchase additional arms for the Contra Guerilla group operating in the mountains of Nicaragua.
Right...the Contras...the guys who did this (Wiki):
Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit.
Just your "run of the mill" freedom fighters. No different than George Washington himself. No terrorist tactics here.
Let's go back to that Iran-contra article for a sec:
The Reagan administration cooperated fully with the investigation, and no wrongdoing was ever proved.
I didn't realize that "cooperated fully" meant "had multiple people convicted of lying to congress" but then I'm a silly liberal. Also, didn't know "no wrongdoing" meant "the administration violated duly-passed Acts of Congress and tried to subvert the constitutional order" - silly rabbit, obeying the law is for Democrats!
Ok, Enough for Now
So there it is. In all seriousness, nearly 8000 articles is nothing to sneeze at, and definitely makes for a fair representation of what they're about. Honestly, the whole place is like some fascinating other-world where Spock has a goatee and the Federation is really an empire. It must be of tremendous value to social scientists, as it gives a much more accurate picture of how they really see things and the kind of discussions they have amongst themselves when they don't think anyone else is watching.
And it's not that every article is terrible. I perused the article on the Democratic party, and nothing jumped out at me worth mocking, but just the repetitive, persistent violations of their own rules, lack of citations, and blatant opinions represented as encyclopedic fact that make the place such a travesty.
The coup de grace? The very short entry for "Reality", which reads in part:
The criteria for establishing the nature of reality are matters of some dispute.
That pretty much sums up the modern conservative political movement in just 13 words. Kudos to them for that.