Why Conservapedia?

ConservapediaI got an email asking why I link to Conservapedia rather than Wikipedia (whenever possible). Well, the simple reason is that Wikipedia is liberal, and I can’t support that. From Conservapedia’s page on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is a online encyclopedia[1] written and edited by an ad hoc assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the Register (UK)[2][3], teenagers and unemployed persons. The project was initiated by two atheists: entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosophy professor Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001. Despite its official “neutrality policy,” Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia “is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known.”

Well, you’d think that would be enough for most people, but Conservapedia has had to devote an entire page to detailing and proving this fact. For example:

  • The Wikipedia entry for homosexuality is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of domestic violence among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that “..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”[36]
  • The Wikipedia entry on baraminology (a form of taxonomy) describes it as “pseudoscience” and “unrelated to science” simply because it was devised by a creationist.[76]
  • Wikipedia‘s entry on Barack Obama claims that he “was selected as an editor of the law review based on his grades and a writing competition,”[93] when in fact the Harvard Law Review has long used racial quotas for admission.[94]
  • Wikipedia has refused to have an article on Sudden Jihad Syndrome despite a term discussed by multiple commentator including neoconservative academic Daniel Pipes and a column in the Washington Times.[266][267][268][269] [270][271] and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.[272]
  • Wikipedia’s most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. [284] The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia’s Global Warming page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. “increase in the average measured temperature … since the mid-twentieth century that same paragraph “solar variation combined with volcanoes … and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.” Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? “very likely due” “probably had” or “the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC‘s main conclusions“- unsubstantiated bias.
  • Wikipedia falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has “come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies.”[96] In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia’s former cite to a New York Times article for support actually criticizes Wikipedia because it “does dwell on the idea that ‘others’ have ‘criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'”[97] Wikipedia persists in asserting that falsehood about Conservapedia.

There are almost 200 more examples of inaccuracies and liberal bias on Wikipedia, but as you can see in the last bullet point, Conservapedia is rarely criticized at all. Why wouldn’t I link to them instead?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: