Conservapedia – Truth or Propaganda?

We live in amazing times. Leaders (not just the fringe) of the conservative movement have come up with their own Wikipedia called Conservapedia

At least for me, this will provide hours of divertisement.

Here’s what others are saying…the Kossaks anyway. As time permits I will attempt to find some uh, unbiased reactions.

DarkSyde says:

Because reality has that nasty progressive bias, conservatives have again created their own, more comforting version, led by none other than Andrew, House of Schlafly. In response to that bastion of overly tolerant, anti-Americanism called the Wikipedia, we present the Conservapedia, dedicated to insuring that wingnuts young and old maintain their grip on ignorance.

Seesdifferent says:

I can’t tell whether the Conservapedia is more Christian or conservative, but I think the former, cause there’s no entry for George Allen, Rick Santorum or Rush Limbaugh. But either way, they might as well call it the Ourshitdoesn’tstinkopedia. Or maybe the LaLaLaLaIcan’thearyoupedia. At any rate, I look forward to appearing as an entry. I would have done it myself but it doesn’t seem to work with the Mac. or maybe it’s just broken…. so somebody please join up and put me in. Just call me seesdifferent. Make up some shit about how I was a missionary or a martyr or a rescued frozen embryo, I don’t care; truth doesn’t matter much, I don’t imagine, as long as you have faith that I am what you say I am. Or write something about dkos: “a motley group of foulmouthed atheists…” you get the idea.

Erasmussimo says:

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.

Let’s look at a few of the evolving definitions:

This entry on Stalin was removed reportedly “out of either shame or embarrassment”

Josef Stalin was an atheist communist Russian dictator during World War II. He was defeated by Adolph Hitler, despite Hitler also being an atheist

Global Warming

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community despite a lack of any conclusive evidence. …It should be noted that these scientists are largely motivated by a need for grant money in their fields. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal atheists, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.


A liberal in the early 1800s in Europe was one who favored more powerful elected assemblies. The term was common in France shortly after the French Revolution. Modern liberals are treasonous [1] and generally hate America [2].

Are we having fun yet?

Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city. Obviously, he is the devil incarnate. Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, an action which was properly seen as a mere attempt to distract the nation from the Monica Lewisnky scandal.

It should be noted that despite the honorable attempts by the huge Wikipedia community to produce a reliable source of information it is for the most part forbidden to site Wikipedia as a reference. We’ll just have to wait and see which prestigious institutions of higher learning will allow Conservapedia

  1. #1 by CJ Not ASP on February 24, 2007 - 12:16 pm

    Gee, I wonder which one most parents will want their kids using for book reports?

    Somehow, I don’t think this is gonna threaten Wikipedia anytime soon. Any conservatives smart enough to come up with propaganda worthy of the name are not going to be industrious enough trying to refashion the entire universe from whole cloth, even if they could somehow keep internal biases (read: lies) consistent. If this is truly creating their own reality, it’s a pretty sad start.

  2. #2 by CJ Not ASP on February 24, 2007 - 12:23 pm

    “Group of islands of the western coast of Asia.”

    I wonder how long it will take them to fix THAT. God forbid some poor little God-Fearing child from Dumbshitsville, Kansas fails a geography test because their parents have forbidden her from using the liberal Wikipedia.

  3. #3 by Ken Schreiner on February 24, 2007 - 1:50 pm

    Have you seen Fox News Channel has a new conservative comedy show that’s their answer to Daily Show? No- I’m not joking. And from the reviews, apparently, neither are they.

  4. #4 by Cavæt on February 24, 2007 - 3:16 pm

    Babbelonia, Here it comes! One world, one wiki! Who knows maybe they’ll define themselves right out of reality. Bye bye.

  5. #5 by glenn on February 24, 2007 - 7:46 pm

    I think back to my college days, the early 80’s, there was a weird strange band that came upon the scene.

    WE ARE DEVO!! They were waaay ahead of their time.

  6. #6 by Cavæt on February 24, 2007 - 8:46 pm

    I had a sit down chat with Tim Leary before he died. He was way into early Devo.

  7. #7 by schreinervideo on February 25, 2007 - 8:11 am

    I hear Devo’s version of “Working in a Coal Mine” on a commercial now. Mark Mothersbaugh, who founded the group, has done everything from the music for “Pee-Wee’s Playhouse” to advertising jingles, which apparently was his first job. I’ve always considered him something of a musical hero, like Danny Elfman who founded Oingo Boingo then became the most creative and prolific film composer (Batman, Nightmare Before Christmas) since Bernard Herrmann. And from listening to both groups, I’d say Elfman was heavily influenced by Devo.

  8. #8 by Frank Staheli on February 26, 2007 - 1:25 pm

    I couldn’t get into the site (after a half hour of waiting). Must be really popular! At any rate, I will assume that the main page does not give any hint that it is supposed to be a biased site. With that assumption…

    Do these so-called “conservatives” ever think? I suggest “crockopedia” as the name for the site.

    I thought the whole idea was for them to provide an un-biased documentation of life and history, because supposedly Wikipedia was biased. But the quotes Cliff includes in the post are all prejudiced beyond repair.

    Why are they afraid to use wikipedia? I think it must be more romantic and glamorous for them to effect the stance of a martyr. Or somebody just wants to be famous.

  9. #9 by alex on November 18, 2012 - 1:05 pm

    I tried to edit the entry for “liberal” on conservapedia to correct some of the distortions of reality thereon. I was immediately excluded from the site as a “spammer” and my edit was rolled back. This, of course, is not a wiki – it is a set piece – i.e. part of the right wing fraud machine used in the manufacture of their alternate reality. It is sad indeed that Romney even came close to 50% in the election – as these are the same tactics he employed extensively in crafting his messaging in October and early November.

    Frankly, these folks scare me – and I do not like having to be ever vigilant.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: