Conservapedia

[Mimpy]

Found this on Trey Given's blog: Conservapedia

Because Wikipedia is too liberal (Examples of Bias in Wikipedia), the conservatives have begun their own project.

The Objectivism article is quite erroneous.

Edited March 10, 2007 by Mimpy

[softwareNerd]

The Wikipedia is liberal? I don't think so. I think the English part is a pretty good sampling of the median opinion in the US, with multiple views being presented on controversial topics. That article that points to bias is only proof that it was written by someone who equates "conservatism" with "evangelical Christianity". Look at the stuff this article is citing as "liberal bias":

Wikipedia currently writes in its article on Jesus the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."...

Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration....

Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry.,...

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.

Some of the other criticisms might be valid, but the Wiki is... a Wiki. Complaining about specific articles is similar to people who criticize specific posts or posters on a public forum.

I notice that they point to ObjectivismOnline's wiki in their references for the article on Objectivism.

Thought I'd add the following: Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wiki, calls himself an Objectivist and even ran a moderator email list on Objectivism (before the time of forums).

Edited March 10, 2007 by softwareNerd

[KendallJ]

Thought I'd add the following: Jimmy Wales, founder of the Wiki, calls himself an Objectivist and even ran a moderator email list on Objectivism (before the time of forums).

And before that he was on alt.philosophy.objectivism (a.p.o), and h.p.o.m, and I'm not sure what before that. Diana knew him well I think. I remember him very well. He was as thoughtful and intellecutally honest as they come (although at the time the Kelley split was rife and like Diana, he was on the "other side".) I don't know how his philosophy has changed since then, but if he is anything like he was then, I'd be proud to call "Jimbo" an Objectivist.

[Galileo Blogs]

Thank you, Mimpy, for pointing out the "Conservapedia." It is a very useful summary of religious conservatives' views on various topics. I pulled up the articles on Objectivism and evolution. The articles are a good summary of the views of religious conservatives on these topics. If you need to see a summary of the religious conservative view on any issue, Conservapedia looks like a good source.

Another benefit of it is that it keeps the religious conservatives penning away on their own forum, and away from corrupting broader forums such as Wikipedia.

For the record, I find Wikipedia extremely valuable, the articles generally very well written, and generally unbiased. All of that surprises me given the collaborative way Wikipedia articles are produced. Where there are biases, they are usually not hard to spot and often appear as self-contained sections within the larger article. One can treat them appropriately.

Conservapedia is a good source to learn what Christian conservatives think on things.

Wikipedia is a good source, period.

I would like to see some Muslims start up a Muslim wiki, so we can have a handy reference to their irrational beliefs!

[punk]

Thank you, Mimpy, for pointing out the "Conservapedia." It is a very useful summary of religious conservatives' views on various topics. I pulled up the articles on Objectivism and evolution. The articles are a good summary of the views of religious conservatives on these topics. If you need to see a summary of the religious conservative view on any issue, Conservapedia looks like a good source.

Another benefit of it is that it keeps the religious conservatives penning away on their own forum, and away from corrupting broader forums such as Wikipedia.

For the record, I find Wikipedia extremely valuable, the articles generally very well written, and generally unbiased. All of that surprises me given the collaborative way Wikipedia articles are produced. Where there are biases, they are usually not hard to spot and often appear as self-contained sections within the larger article. One can treat them appropriately.

Conservapedia is a good source to learn what Christian conservatives think on things.

Wikipedia is a good source, period.

I would like to see some Muslims start up a Muslim wiki, so we can have a handy reference to their irrational beliefs!

I know this is a bit off topic, but...

Does anyone else find this tendency to construct parallel and separate media for liberals and conservatives a bit troubling.

I means sure everyone should be free to do what they want.

But the basic idea that "These are conservative facts integrated into a conservative world view and these are liberal facts integrated into a liberal world view", is intellectually troubling. I mean facts are facts, and the real world is rarely as clean as ideologies would have it, and there should be disagreements and discussions on things.

[KendallJ]

I'm not sure that liberals integrate to the level that Conservatives do (if you buy the DIM hypothesis) but for sure, I think the mis-integration of conservatives is quite dangerous.

[Whoisjohngalt]

Could not resist this one! Conservapedia is another example of religious conservatives trying to deny reality by labelling it "Liberal". Fortunately they accept Ayn Rand as real.

[Prometheus98876]

It is a pity Convservepedia did not do a list of "Examples of Errors in Wikipedia" in relation to Objectivism...maybe that would help them realize some of the errors they themselves made...