Jump to content

Conservapedia

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sid 3050 (talk | contribs) at 21:00, 12 January 2011 (Undid revision 407530846 by Yaksar (talk) Why don't you join in the discussion on the talk page ("Registration")? Also, it's not as clear as that.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Conservapedia
Conservapedia logo
Screenshot
File:Conservapedia mainpage Nov 24 2010.jpg
Screenshot of the top portion of the Conservapedia homepage on 24 November 2010
Type of site
Internet encyclopedia project
Wiki
Available inEnglish
OwnerAndrew Schlafly
Created byVolunteer contributors[1]
URLwww.conservapedia.com
CommercialNo
RegistrationOptional (required to edit pages)

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from an American conservative Christian point of view, and considers itself a supporter of "conservative, family-friendly" content.[3] It was started in 2006 by homeschool teacher and attorney Andy Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[4][5] to counter what he called the liberal bias of Wikipedia.[6][7] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content. Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include: advocacy for Young Earth creationism, negative accusations against President Barack Obama, criticism of Albert Einstein and relativity, and claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer. Conservapedia also operates a "Conservative Bible Project", a conservative re-interpretation of the Bible.

The project has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from various figures from both ends of the political spectrum, including commentators and journalists,[8][9][10][11][12] and has been criticized for bias and inaccuracies.[11][13][14]

History and overview

Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly

Conservapedia was created in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard-educated attorney and a homeschool teacher.[5] He felt the need to start the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred.[15] Although he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast", as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly became concerned about bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.[8] Schlafly expressed hope that Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived in Wikipedia.[6][11][16]

The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum organization, uses material for various online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.[7][17][18] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.[18]

Running on MediaWiki software,[4][7] the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest articles dating from November 22.[6][7][16] As of September 2010, Conservapedia contains over 34,000 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.[19] Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include links to news articles and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.[20] The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion and politics.[21] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages.[11][22] It was, at one point, the most-viewed page on the site.[23]

Editorial viewpoints and policies

Conservapedia has editorial policies designed to prevent what Schlafly sees as structural and ideological problems[clarification needed] with Wikipedia and generalized vandalism.

Differences from Wikipedia

Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia. Articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as criticism of its alleged liberal ideology.[11] Launching the online encyclopedia project, Schlafly asserted the need for an alternative to Wikipedia due to editorial philosophy conflicts. The site's "Conservapedia Commandments"[24] differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include following a neutral point of view[25] and avoiding original research.[26][27] In response to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated: "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",[6] and "Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob".[9]

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds—so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach".[16] On March 7, 2007, Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that Wikipedia articles apparently prefer to use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly. In response to Schlafly's claim that the Wikipedia policy of allowing both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias,[28][29][30] Redmond argued that Wikipedia attracts contributors worldwide and so must use Common Era notation to be more neutral, since CE notation has only a nominal, not numerical, difference with the AD format. He also cited the Wikipedia policies regarding citation of sources and cooperation with other contributors as basis for allowing any factual information to be added.[31]

Conflict with scientific views

Various Conservapedia articles have been challenged from a scientific perspective. Sources have attributed this to an editorial support of the young earth creationist point of view and an over-reliance on home schooling textbooks.[6][7][14]

Conservapedia's article on evolution presents evolution as a scientific theory that lacks support and conflicts with evidence in the fossil record that creationists perceive to support creationism.[32][33] The entry also suggests that sometimes the Bible has been more scientifically correct than the scientific community.[34] Schlafly had defended the statement as presenting an alternative to evolution.[6] A Los Angeles Times journalist voiced concern that children stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia's alleged science is accurate.[15] An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention. Schlafly has asserted that the page was intended as a parody of environmentalism.[9] As of March 4, 2007, the entry has been deleted.[35]

Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb", and that Einstein was only a minor contributor to the theory of relativity.[9][13][28][36] Conservapedia asserts that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer,[37][38] while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first-trimester abortion.[39][40]

In an analysis in early 2007, science writer Carl Zimmer found evidence that much of what appeared to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory could be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile.[41] On March 19, 2007, the British free newspaper Metro ran the article "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes", articulating the dismissal of Conservapedia by the Royal Society, saying "People need to be very careful about where they look for scientific information".[14]

Conservapedia has also received criticism for its articles regarding the theory of relativity, particularly on their entry titled "Counterexamples to relativity", an article that lists examples as to why the theory is incorrect. Attention was drawn to the article by a Talking Points Memo posting, in which they reported on Conservapedia's entry and stated that Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia's founder, "has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity".[42] New Scientist, a science magazine, criticized Conservapedia's views on relativity and responded to several of Conservapedia's arguments against it.[43] Against Conservapedia's statements, New Scientist stated that one is unlikely to find a single physicist that would claim that the theory of general relativity is the whole answer to how the universe works, and claimed that the theory of relativity has passed every test that the theory has been put through.[43]: 1 

University of Maryland physics professor Robert L. Park has also criticized Conservapedia's entry on the theory of relativity, arguing that its criticism of the principle as being "heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world" confuses a physical theory with a Christian-conservative moral value.[44] In a similar statement, New Scientist stated at the end of their article that:[43]: 2 

In the end there is no liberal conspiracy at work. Unfortunately, humanities scholars often confuse the issue by misusing the term "relativity". The theory in no way encourages relativism, regardless of what Conservapedia may think. The theory of relativity is ultimately not so much about what it renders relative—three dimensional space and one-dimensional time—but about what it renders absolute: the speed of light and four-dimensional space-time.

In October 2010, Scientific American criticized Conservapedia's attitude towards the Theory of Relativity, assigning them a zero score on their 0 to 100 fallacy-versus-fact "Science Index", describing Conservapedia as "the online encyclopedia run by conservative lawyer Andrew Schlafly, (which) implies that Einstein's theory of relativity is part of a liberal plot."[45]

Political and religious ideology

Many Conservapedia articles criticize values that its editors associate with "liberal ideology". Schlafly said in an interview with National Public Radio that Wikipedia's article on the history of the Democratic Party is an "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson" and that it is "specious and worth criticizing".[6] He also has claimed that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public", a claim that has been labeled "sensational" by Andrew Chung of the Canadian newspaper the Toronto Star.[11]

John Cotey of the St. Petersburg Times observed that the Conservapedia article about the Democratic Party contained a criticism about the party's alleged support for same-sex marriage, and associated the party with the "homosexual agenda".[46] The Conservapedia entries on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama are critical of their respective subjects.[15] During the 2008 presidential campaign, its entry on Obama asserted that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action". Some Conservapedia editors urged that it be changed or deleted, but Schlafly responded by asserting that the Harvard Law Review, the Harvard University legal journal for which Obama was once an editor and president, uses racial quotas and stated: "The statement about affirmative action is accurate and will remain in the entry".[47] In addition, Hugh Muir of the British newspaper The Guardian mockingly referred to Conservapedia's assertion that Obama has links to radical Islam as "dynamite" and an excellent resource for "US rightwingers".[48] In contrast, the articles about conservative politicians, such as Republican former US president Ronald Reagan and former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher have been observed as praising their respective subjects.[15][49] Mark Sabbatini of the Juneau Empire considered the Conservapedia entry on Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate for the 2008 US presidential election a "kinder, gentler" and "far shorter and less controversial" reference for one wishing to learn about Palin in contrast with the corresponding Wikipedia entry, which Sabbatini found to be plagued by disputes over inclusion of potentially controversial details about her life.[50]

In July 2008, American Prospect associate editor Ezra Klein derided the Conservapedia article on atheism in his weekly column: "As Daniel DeGroot notes, you've got to wonder which 'unreasonable' explanations they rejected when formulating that entry".[51]

Licensing of content

Conservapedia allows users to "use any of the content on this site with or without attribution". The copyright policy also states "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees". It also does not permit "unauthorized mirroring".[52] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has raised concerns about the fact that the project is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a similar copyleft license, stating that "People who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results".[11]: 4 

Vandalism

The site has stated that it prohibits unregistered users from editing entries due to concerns over vandalism and defamation. Brian Macdonald, a Conservapedia editor, commented vandalism was intended to "cause people to say, 'That Conservapedia is just wacko.'" Macdonald spent many hours daily reverting, in the words of Stephanie Simon of the LA Times, "malicious editing". Vandals had inserted "errors, pornographic photos and satire". For example, U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales was said to be "a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants".[15]

Other editorial policies

Conservapedia states on its "Manual of Style" page that "American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome". It prefers that articles about the United Kingdom use British English, while articles about the United States use American English, to resolve editorial disputes.[53] Initially, Schlafly[31] and other Conservapedia editors[23] considered Wikipedia's policy allowing British English spelling to be anti-American bias. The "Conservapedia Commandments" also require edits to be "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" and that users make most edits on their site quality edits to articles; accounts that engage in what it considers "unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits" may be blocked. The commandments also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edits that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam.[24] Conservapedia policies encourage its users to choose usernames "based on [their] real name or initials", and users that have usernames deemed "frivolous" by the admins are blocked;[54] one of the site's criticisms of Wikipedia is "silly administrator names", which is claimed to reflect Wikipedia's "substantial anti-intellectual element".[55]

Reception

The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for numerous factual inaccuracies[13][14] and factual relativism.[13] Wired magazine noted that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers".[9] Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[28] Conservapedia has been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective,[4][9] and Theopedia, a wiki with a Reformed theology focus.[30] Fox News obliquely compared it with other 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.[56] The Guardian of the United Kingdom has referred to the Conservapedia's politics as "right-wing".[16]

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.[11] Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians".[57] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective".[58] APC magazine perceives this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[34] 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".[59]

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".[13] 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".[60] Author Damien Thompson says Conservapedia "is to dress up nonsense as science".[61]

Bryan Ochalla, writing for the LGBT magazine The Advocate, referred to the project as "Wikipedia for the bigoted".[62] On the satirical news program The Daily Show, comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality.[63] Writing in The Australian, columnist Emma Jane described Conservapedia as "a disturbing parallel universe where the ice age is a theoretical period, intelligent design is empirically testable, and relativity and geology are junk sciences." [64]

Opinions criticizing the site rapidly spread throughout the blogosphere around early 2007.[9][20] Schlafly appeared on radio programs Today on BBC Radio 4[31] 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.[65]

Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about Conservapedia.[15] 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.[66]

Conservapedia's use of Wikipedia's format to try and create a conservative and fundamentalist Christian alternative encyclopedia, has been mirrored by other sites, such as Tangle.com (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch, which adopted the format of the more prominent Facebook, Youtube and MySpace, respectively.[4][56][67]

Jimmy Wales

Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales said about Conservapedia that "free culture knows no bounds" and "the reuse of our work to build variants [is] directly in line with our mission".[68] Wales denied Schlafly's claims of liberal bias in Wikipedia.[11]

RationalWiki

In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, repeatedly attempted to edit Conservapedia's article on breast cancer to include evidence against Conservapedia's statement naming abortion as a major cause of the disease. Conservapedia administrators "questioned his credentials and shut off debate".[15]: 3  Several editors whose accounts were blocked by Conservapedia administrators, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki,[69] to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "anti-science movement", and "crank ideas", as well as conduct "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" and explore "how these subjects are handled in the media."[70]

According to an article published in the LA Times in 2007, "From there, RationalWiki members monitor Conservapedia, particularly on the page "Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?", and—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism".[15]: 3  RationalWiki members and others have inserted vandalism edits into Conservapedia; such edits have introduced errors, pornographic images, and satire.[15]: 4 

Lenski dialogue

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

On June 9, 2008, New Scientist published an article describing Richard Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment, which reported that the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate.[71] Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Lenski explained that the relevant data was in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data. Lenski replied again that the relevant data was already in the paper, that the "raw data" were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit.[72]

The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia page entitled "Lenski dialog",[73] was widely reported on news-aggregating sites and web logs. Carl Zimmer wrote that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski's paper] closely",[74] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.[75] During and after the Lenski dialogue on Conservapedia, several users on the site were blocked for "insubordination" for expressing disagreement with Schlafly's stance on the issue.[76]

The dialogue between Lenski and Conservapedia is noted in Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution in a chapter concerning Lenski's research.[77]

Conservative Bible Project

Conservapedia hosts the "Conservative Bible Project", a project aiming to rewrite the English translation of the Bible in order to remove terms described as "liberal bias".[78] The project intends to remove sections of the Bible which are judged by Conservapedia's founder to be later liberal additions.[79] These include the story of the adulteress in the Gospel of John in which Jesus declares "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".[78] The project also intends to remove Jesus's prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing", since it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and since, according to Schlafly, "the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible".[78] The adulteress story and the "forgive them" line are missing from many early manuscripts, and many modern textual scholars consider that they are not authentic parts of the gospels, though possibly historically valid.[80][81]

The Bible project has met with extensive criticism.[82][83] Rod Dreher, a conservative editor and columnist, described the project as "insane hubris" and "crazy"; he further described the project as "It's like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'".[12][84] Ed Morrissey, another conservative Christian writer, wrote that bending the word of God to one's own ideology makes God subservient to an ideology, rather than the other way around.[85] Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily, stated: "I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake" and "There's certainly nothing 'conservative' about rewriting the Bible".[86]

On October 7, 2009, Stephen Colbert called for his viewers to incorporate him into the Conservapedia Bible as a Biblical figure and viewers responded by editing the Conservapedia Bible to include his name.[87][88] This was followed by an interview between Colbert and Schlafly on December 8, 2009.[89]

See also

References

  1. ^ Conservapedia general disclaimer. Conservapedia.
  2. ^ "Conservapedia.com". Alexa. Retrieved 2010-11-14.
  3. ^ "Conservapedia". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
  4. ^ a b c d Coyle, Jake (2007-05-10). "Conservapedia, QubeTV mimic popular sites with spin to right". Retrieved 2010-03-26.
  5. ^ a b "Andy Schlafly". Eagle Forum University. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h Siegel, Robert (2007-03-13). "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  7. ^ a b c d e "Conservapedia: christlich-konservative Alternative zu Wikipedia". Heise Online. 2007-03-02. Template:De icon
  8. ^ a b Zeller, Shawn (2007-03-05). "Conservapedia: See Under "Right"". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Calore, Michael (February 28, 2007) What Would Jesus Wiki? Wired Magazine
  10. ^ a b c d e f g h i Chung, Andrew (2007-03-11). "A U.S. conservative wants to set Wikipedia right". The Star.com. Toronto.
  11. ^ a b Dreher, Rod (1 October 2009). "Conservatizing the Bible". Crunchy Con. Beliefnet. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  12. ^ a b c d e the notion "that there's always a second, equally valid interpretation of the facts". Clarke, Conor. (2007). "A fact of one's own". The Guardian, March 1.
  13. ^ a b c d "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes". Metro. Associated Newspapers. 2007-03-19. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g h i Simon, Stephanie (2007-06-22). "A conservative's answer to Wikipedia". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  15. ^ a b c d Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-01). "Rightwing website challenges 'liberal bias' of Wikipedia". The Guardian. London.
  16. ^ "American History Lecture One". Conservapedia. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  17. ^ a b "American History 101". Eagle Forum University. 2007-04-30. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  18. ^ "Conservapedia statistics". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2009-10-31.
  19. ^ a b Decker, Edwin (2007-07-25). "Sickopedia". San Diego CityBeat. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
  20. ^ Wehrwein, Zach (Autumn 2007). "My Trip Through La La Land". Gordian Knot. University of Chicago. Retrieved 2008-08-07.
  21. ^ "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia". Conservapedia. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-03-17.
  22. ^ a b Turner, Adam (2007-03-05). "Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right". IT Wire. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
  23. ^ a b "Conservapedia Commandments". Conservapedia. 2008-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  24. ^ "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Wikipedia. 2007-01-21. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  25. ^ "Wikipedia:Attribution". Wikipedia. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  26. ^ "Conservapedia:Guidelines". Conservapedia. 2008-05-27. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  27. ^ a b c Thomson, Iain (2007) "Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia 'bias'" Information World Review, February 28. Archived March 2, 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  28. ^ Lewis, Shelley (2007) "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Wikipedia's War on Christians, Patriots" Huffington Post, February 23
  29. ^ a b Zhang, Linda (2007-03-07). "Conservapedia Challenges 'Anti-Christian' Wiki". The Christian Post. Retrieved 2008-06-28.
  30. ^ a b c "Today programme" (RealPlayer). BBC Radio 4. March 7, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-09.
  31. ^ Brown, Barrett (April 23). "Conservapedia: Bastion of the Reality-Denying Right". Vanity Fair. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  32. ^ "Evolution". Conservapedia. 2010-05-29. Retrieved 2010-05-29.
  33. ^ a b Sbarski, Peter (2007-03-10). "Wikipedia vs Conservapedia". APC. Retrieved 2008-06-28.
  34. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus". Retrieved March 4, 2007. Archived 2007-03-04 at the Wayback Machine
  35. ^ "Relativity". Conservapedia. 2007-02-22. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  36. ^ Andrew Chung (2007-03-11). "Conservative wants to set Wikipedia right". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
  37. ^ Bagley, Steven H. (2007-09-03). "Thoughts on a Conservapedia". Blastmagazine.com. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
  38. ^ "WHO — Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk". Archived from the original on August 4, 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-29. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  39. ^ Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G (2004). "Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries". Lancet. 363 (9414): 1007–16. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15835-2. PMID 15051280. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  40. ^ Zimmer, Carl (2007-02-21). "Sources, Sources". The Loom. Scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  41. ^ Carpentier, Megan (August 9, 2010). "Conservapedia: E=mc2 Is A Liberal Conspiracy". TPMMuckracker. Talking Points Memo. Retrieved September 4, 2010.
  42. ^ a b c Gefter, Amanda; Biever, Celeste (August 11, 2010). "E=mc2? Not on Conservapedia". New Scientist. Retrieved September 4, 2010.
  43. ^ Park, Robert L. "Conservapedia: Countering the Liberal Bias of Wikipedia". BobPark.org; August 13, 2010.
  44. ^ Scientific American, October 2010, issue, "Science Index", Page 22
  45. ^ Cotey, John (2007-03-16). "Conservative Web site counters the 'bias' of Wikipedia". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-07-03.
  46. ^ Schlafly, Andrew (February 17, 2008). "Talk:Barack Obama". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-03-27.
  47. ^ Muir, Hugh (2007-10-03). "Guardian Diary". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2008-11-24.
  48. ^ Read, Brock (March 2, 2007). "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing". Chronicle of Higher Education. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  49. ^ Sabbatini, Mark (2008-09-02). "Wikipedia war emerges over details about Palin". The Juneau Empire. Retrieved 2008-09-02.
  50. ^ Klein, Ezra (2008-07-28). "God's Bathroom Floor". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2008-07-28.
  51. ^ "Conservapedia Copyright". Conservapedia. 2009-02-17. Retrieved 2010-11-06.
  52. ^ "Spelling". Manual of Style. Conservapedia. 2008-04-10. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  53. ^ "Log in / create account". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
  54. ^ "Conservapedia Guidelines: Member accounts". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
  55. ^ a b "GodTube Provides Christian Web-Video Alternative". Fox News. Associated Press. 2007-11-02. Retrieved 2008-08-02.
  56. ^ Millham, Matt (2008-06-15). "Faith takes strange forms on the Web". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 2008-06-25.
  57. ^ Gray, Tim (2007-04-03). "Conservapedia: Far Righter Than Wikipedia". ecommercetimes.com. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  58. ^ Dreher, Rod (2009-10-01). "Conservatizing the Bible". Beliefnet. Retrieved 2009-10-05.
  59. ^ Sheffield, Matthew (August 22, 2008). "Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat". The Washington Times. Retrieved April 1, 2010.
  60. ^ Thompson, Damian (2008). Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and Fake History. Atlantic Books. ISBN 1843546752.
  61. ^ Bryan Ochalla, "Wikipedia for the bigoted". The Advocate, March 25, 2008, p. 12.
  62. ^ "Episode 12087". The Daily Show. 2007-06-27. Comedy Central. Black highlighted Conservapedia's introductory sentence "homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle". In response, he said: "On Conservapedia, 'gay' sounds way more interesting!"
  63. ^ Jane, Emma (January 8, 2011). "A parallel online universe". The Australian. Retrieved January 9, 2011.
  64. ^ Andrew Schlafly (2008-05-21). Conservapedia on The Hour. YouTube.
  65. ^ Barber, Matt (2008-05-23). "Conservapedia: The Conservative Alternative". Concerned Women for America. Archived from the original on 2008-05-27. Retrieved 2008-09-13.
  66. ^ Thomson, Iain (2007-04-30). "Christians take on YouTube with GodTube". Archived from the original on September 2, 2007. Retrieved 2010-03-26. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  67. ^ Biever, Celeste (2007-02-26). "A conservative rival for Wikipedia?". New Scientist.
  68. ^ See RationalWiki Web site
  69. ^ "About". RationalWiki. 19 September 2010. Retrieved 16 October 2010.
  70. ^ Holmes, Bob (2008-06-09). "Bacteria makes major evolutionary shift in the lab". New Scientist. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  71. ^ Marshall, Michael (2008-06-25). "Creationist critics get their comeuppance". newscientist. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  72. ^ "Conservapedia: Lenski Dialog". Conservapedia. 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  73. ^ Zimmer, Carl (2008-06-24). "The Loom: Of Bacteria and Throw Pillows". scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  74. ^ Myers, PZ (2008-06-24). "Lenski gives conservapedia a lesson". scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  75. ^ Conservapedia has a little hangup over evolution, Charles Arthur, July 1, 2008, The Guardian Technology blog
  76. ^ Chapter 5: "Before our very eyes (examples of evolution observed)"
  77. ^ a b c Gibson, David (7 October 2009). "A Neocon Bible: What Would Jesus Say?". Politics Daily. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  78. ^ Wasserman, Tommy (19 October 2009). "Conservapedia Bible Project — Free of Corruption by Liberal Untruths?". Retrieved 19 October 2009.
  79. ^ "NETBible: John 7". Bible.org. Retrieved 2009-10-17. See note 139 on that page. See also the New International Version of John 7:53–8:11.
  80. ^ "NETBible: Luke 23". Bible.org. Retrieved 2009-10-17. See note 81 on that page.
  81. ^ Franzen, Carl (7 October 2009). "The Bible: Conservative Edition". The Atlantic Wire. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  82. ^ McGrath, James F. (7 December 2009). "Translating the Bible is no joke. But what's in a political 'translation'?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-12-09.
  83. ^ "Conservapedia.com's Conservative Bible Project aims to deliberalize the bible". New York Daily News. 6 October 2009. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  84. ^ "Do conservatives need their own Bible translation?". Hot Air. 6 October 2009. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  85. ^ "Now 'conservatives' are twisting Scripture". WorldNetDaily. 22 October 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2009.
  86. ^ "The Colbert Report (October 7, 2009 episode)". The Colbert Report. 2009-10-07. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  87. ^ Collis, Clark (8 October 2009). "Stephen Colbert wants you to put him in the Bible". Entertainment Weekly (PopWatch). Retrieved 15 October 2009.
  88. ^ "The Colbert Report (December 8, 2009 episode)". The Colbert Report. 2009-12-08. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=407535830"