Conservative "Alternative To Wikipedia" Launched
Posted by Charles W. Moore on 03/07 at 12:47 PM
Conservapedia has been launched as an alternative to Wikipedia.
Conservapedia's editors contend that:
"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."
"Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as 'conservative' compared with 'liberal'," say Conservapedia's authors, "and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as 'liberal' compared with 'conservative'. That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."
They have posted a page of what they argue are many examples of liberal bias in Wikipedia here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_o ... _Wikipedia
Conservapedia casts itself as "an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America, suggesting that "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of 'political correctness'."
Conservapedia began as a class project last November for Andrew Schlafly - attorney and the son of prominent American conservative Phyllis Schlafly who founded the Eagle Forum - and 58 of his New Jersey history students.
"I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views," Schlafly, told the British Guardian newspaper. "In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."
The Guardian also notes that "Wikipedia has come in for criticism for its open approach, most notably from Dale Hoiberg, the editor-in-chief of Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Wikipedia's own entry on Conservapedia says: " Conservapedia is a private wiki project to construct an encyclopedia with articles that are unashamedly pro-American, socially conservative and supportive of conservative Christianity."
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project. "Free culture knows no bounds," he said. "We welcome the reuse of our work to build variants."
Of course Conservapedia leaves itself wide-open for accusations of conservative bias. Blogger "Jon Swift" has posted a withering sendup here:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ ... pedia.html
To its credit, Conservapedia has posted links to some of its critics noting that "The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies and allegations of a bias of its own (see Factual relativism). Critics, including the libertarian conservative writer Andrew Sullivan and conservative blogger Jon Swift, as well as the science writer Carl Zimmer and others, have criticized and mocked the website for factual inaccuracy, extremism, hypocrisy, bias, and ignoring the scientific consensus on subjects such as the Big Bang and evolution in favor of biblical exegesis."
As a Conservapedia entry by Duncan Blackthorne puts it:
"I think a more valuable question to be asking here is: Should political philosophies and religious/spiritual beliefs have a place at all in deciding the content of what is supposed to ostensibly be a resource of pure knowledge? If some people here find it repugnant that Wikipedia allegedly is 'liberally biased', then I find it equally repugnant that someone felt the need to create a version of it with a 'conservative/Christian bias' - especially when it openly bashes what it was created to oppose. Ideally, knowledge should be like energy (in the physics sense of the word): neither good nor bad in it's essence, it just exists.
"If your political, philosophical, or religious/spiritual beliefs are driving what you're calling 'knowledge' or 'fact' instead of citeable and/or independently verifiable sources, then perhaps it should be re-examined instead of posted in a tome labeled 'knowledge' or 'fact' - or at the very least, have the decency to call it 'belief' instead of 'knowledge' or 'fact'."
Well said. My spin? Unfortunately, as laudable as the ideal Mr. Blackthorne advocates is, any claim to bias-free reporting of "facts", whether in journalism or encyclopedias, is myth and conceit. The selection of what to report itself is a form of bias. The best we can hope for is a dedication to giving various points of view a fair hearing.
You can check out Conservapedia here:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
_________________
Throughout his life, from childhood until death, he was beset by severe swings of mood. His depressions frequently encouraged, and were exacerbated by, his various vices. His character mixed a superficial Enlightenment sensibility for reason and taste with a genuine and somewhat Romantic love of the sublime and a propensity for occasionally puerile whimsy.
harry Wrote:
I understand that you, of all people, know this crisis and, in your own way, are working to address it. You, the madras-pantsed julip-sipping Southern cracker and me, the oldman hippie California fruit cake are brothers in the struggle to save our country.
FT Wrote:
LooGAR (the straw that stirs the drink)
