A conservative alternative to Wikipedia!!!

[KR McKay]

I have often used Wikipedia, and enjoyed its tremendous storehouse of knowledge, although I have also known that I needed to take things that I read there with the Proverbial "grain of salt," since, of course, anyone can post anything there.

Thus, tonight/this morning, I was pleasantly surprised to accidentally discover "Conservapedia!"

This info is found under the "About" link:

Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here. Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike. Our courses are ongoing and open to all here: Conservapedia:Index. We have received over 250 million page views!

A conservative approach to education is powerful and helpful in many ways. It equips students and adults to overcome inevitable obstacles, such as addiction and depression, and it guides learners to lasting insights. There are few, if any, conservative schools, and Conservapedia freely provides this unique approach for the benefit you and those around you. Conservapedia was on the Colbert Report on December 8, 2009.
The starting point for increasing your knowledge, your faith and the well-being of you and those around you is to understand concepts better. Conservapedia enables you to do that, and to impart what you have learned to others by editing here. The truth shall set you free. For the fundamental differences between Conservapedia and the hearsay society at Wikipedia, see Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia.
No other encyclopedic resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths. Please look around while you're here, share this with others, edit your favorite entries, and enjoy the benefits of new insights that you never realized before. For example, do you know why pretzels have their shape? Click it to find out!
Here are some of our favorite entries:

• Bias in Wikipedia
• Atheism
• Evolution
• Conservative
• Liberal
• Hollywood Values
  

Below are some articles and videos on Conservapedia:

• Articles on Conservapedia
• Videos on Conservapedia.

Welcome, and enjoy!
Legal stuff

• General disclaimer
• Copyright information
  

And this is a handy guide as to the advantages of Conservapedia versus Wikipedia:

Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

1. Wikipedia is part of the hearsay society, drawing no distinction between what is factual and what is unreliable hearsay. We at Conservapedia separate the wheat from the chaff.
   
2. We at Conservapedia allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material to the extent anyone else edits it, as you cannot then copy your entry for use elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions.
3. We are an educational resource, including lectures and study guides, and we welcome students and adults seeking to learn. Wikipedia has no lectures or study guides and many of its entries and discussions are anti-intellectual in nature.
4. We are a genuine volunteer effort unaffiliated with any money-making scheme. Wikipedia, while relying on volunteers, uses its traffic to attract million-dollar investments in money-making projects, such as building a search engine.
5. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts.
6. We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
7. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.
8. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. Wikipedia has pornographic images, without meaningful warning. Conservapedia is first and foremost a family-friendly encyclopedia.
9. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then we use the label "terrorist" but Wikipedia will use the "neutral" term "militant".
10. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.
11. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as "original research." Here, we do not restrict research for articles in that manner.
12. We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible. Wikipedia treats users' own talk pages like government or public property, and it becomes a place for Wikipedia editors to bully users.
13. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stub templates" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting templates on entries.
14. We do not require contributing editors to have to explain themselves constantly and justify every single edit to prove that it conforms to an exacting set of rules which are designed to suppress original thought, new ideas and penetrating insights.
15. We do not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research.
16. We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.
17. We do not encourage anti-intellectual editor names that are attracted to Wikipedia. For example, the Wikipedia administrator who initially deleted the entry about Conservapedia uses the name "Nearly Headless Nick." The Hartford Courant observed that another editor posted under the name "The Ostrich." These names send an inappropriate anti-intellectual message for an encyclopedia.
    

So, there you are! Enjoy!

[mattfivefour]

Thanks, bro. I was once supposedly an editor on Wikipedia, yet every time I attempted to correct an erroneous article there on the Rapture, my edits were removed. The complaint was that I did not substantiate my facts with legitimate references. When I pointed out that I indeed did, and showed that I cited from the works of Dr. David Reagan, Dr. Thomas Ice and Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum among others, I was informed those are not credible sources. When I questioned their own "acceptable" sources such as Rapture deniers Dave MacPherson and John Bray whose writings on the subject have been proven erroneous, I was ignored and their writings that I removed or put into context were restored to their original form. (BTW. the chief editor who did this claims he is a Christian! His bio indicates he is Presbyterian, if I recall correctly.) So after a few futile attempts at proper scholarship, I left Wikipedia. As a journalist I always knew it was unreliable as a source of information and for that reason was forbidden as a source in any of our network newsrooms. I thought perhaps that proper scholarship could "fix" it; but it can't. The model is flawed and, by its very nature, cannot be fixed. I fear that Conservapedia will be just as flawed, although on the conservative side. My advice to anybody looking for information is to use as many sources as you have access to and as many and varied as possible with the time you have available.

[readyforhome]

Well all I can say that at every school I've been to is that Wikipedia is NOT allowable as a credible source of information. If one were to try to use Wikipedia in their research papers then that would be counted against them. This would be for many reasons, including the issue of anyone coming in and adding information to the articles including people who have no real knowledge of them. I've been on Conservapedia and it is slanted toward a conservative point of view, which was refreshing in that it was a change from the usual liberal slant. BUT to be honest it wasn't intellectually impartial.