Conservapedia is a conservative's response to what he perceives to be liberal bias on the part of Wikipedia. It offers an alternative version of the truth and promises to be unbiased. The results are, unsurprisingly, heavily biased in favor of conservative points of view.
First off, I apologize if I have failed to note another entry on this topic; I searched and found nothing on it.
They have copied the look and feel of Wikipedia. By way of justification, they offer their evidence of Wikipedia's bias:
- Wikipedia uses the "anti-Christian" notation BCE and CE as opposed to the proper BC and AD.
- Wikipedia uses British spellings instead of patriotic American spellings. e.g. "labour", not "labor".
- They have located some articles that say nasty things about conservatives that they admire.
- Wikipedia has censored creationist arguments from the articles on evolution even though "most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of evolution."
- Wikipedia includes lots of "gossip" in its articles.
Their own articles are scant and skimpy. Surprisingly, their article on evolution contains no ravings. They also have a debate area, but the standard of debate is woefully uninformed. Their debate on evolutionary theory contains some of the standard idiocy about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is truly appalling that, after all these years, they STILL don't understand a concept that has been nailed down solidly for 200 years.
Despite the pathetic nature of this effort, I still find it alarming that conservatives feel a need to create a "conservative version" of the truth. And I have a suggestion for all those who share my alarm. Please, don't attack Conservapedia. Don't go over there and play the troll. Instead, take the constructive approach. Go to Wikipedia and locate an article on something you know well, and then improve it. Do your homework, dig up the references, and add to the body of truth at Wikipedia. It is better to light one candle of truth than rage against the darkness.