It's conservative hence the name "Conservapedia". Rationalwiki, Wikipedia wants to make you think that they're telling facts about the real world objectively, yet they're actually liberally biased.
"When we tried to edit wikipedia by adding false information, they removed that, and that is censorship." Wikipedia is intended for facts oml this is painful to watch
It absolutely cracks me up that they claim they're trying to fix the problem of Wikipedia being too biased. Choose any topic and read that topic's page on both Wikipedia and Conservapedia. No matter what the topic is, it's pretty clear which page is more biased. Their article on gay marriage stood out as even more biased than most of their articles. They refused to even use the term marriage without quotation marks, which seems downright juvenile and immature.
Does this explain why it seems downright juvenile and immature? Before mobile phones of any kind (that is before even car phones) no one would have ever used the phrase landline phone, those were all the phones in existence. Phrases like 'car phone' and 'cell phone' refer to other kinds of phones. Does it seem likewise with same sex marriage? As far as I know, even (evangelical) Christian conservatives can use marriage metaphorically without the quotation marks, such as when referring to a union of dirt, rocks and plants.
I always read Conservapedia, provides a great amount of lols ^^ I can't believe those who write articles are serious, it's all so ridicolous it must be done on purpose!
PS: I just noted the section "Reasonable Explanations for Atheism" in the article on Atheism on Conservapedia. So what are these (unbiased) explanations? - Rebellion - Moral depravity - Superficiality - Error [...] - Poor relationship with father [...] etc. Conservapedia truly is a great source of information.
I am an avid visitor of conservapedia. I think everyone should check it out. It'll make you appreciate reality once you've returned to it after a visit on the site.
I'm reading the article on dinosaurs and here are two choice quotes: "Creation science asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation[3] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans" "Descriptions of dragons are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actually very likely dinosaurs."
They're definitely right about ancient history having an anti-American bias. The USA is hardly even mentioned in much of the liberal-biased ancient history literature.
My favorite article on conservapedia is the one about "deceit". Guess which party lies all the time and which party never lies at all? You only get one guess :)
@@samuelwolch1302 - Wrong, it's Democrats (and that's just in the US alone - in Canada, the Trudeau Liberals, the NDP, the Greens, the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois fit that bill).
I say, this Andy Schlafly guy is INSANE! Mad about the conservative ideology! So mad that it has taken over his life, his attitudes, and his passions for Jesus Christ. Amen.
At 0:52: The fact that people are flocking to a website doesn't necessarily mean they are going to there to get information. Some of the most popular websites are comedy sites.
1:12 If you look at Wikipedia's page on the Renaissance and hit Ctrl+f you can search "Christian" and find there are 7 Mentions of the word on the page. Only one of those are under the "religion tab" , it even goes as far as saying on the page, "In the revival of neo-Platonism Renaissance humanists did not reject Christianity; quite the contrary, many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to it, and the Church patronized many works of Renaissance art." It points out the importance of the church during the time and their support. I can't believe they go as far as to say it "mentions nothing".
No no, don't put them in a nice place with white walls. That would prevent them from floating away when they deny the theory of gravity because it's "just a theory."
Conservapedia is responsible for more than 20000 failed projects. Teachers should give out fails just for having a link to conservapedia in a bibliography.
1:29 "There are people who are obsessed with promoting the evolution issue".....LOL, thank god we can go to Conservapedia where there is no bias at all and no-one pushes ideas down your throat about a magic man in the sky who created everything in 7 Earth days (yes, an all powerful god works in a human timescale....). God love you Conservapedia, great comedy is hard to come by these days!
No teacher would accept Conservapedia either, minus the homeschoolers who think of it as a good resource. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is very good for data mining. Though we, students, cannot use Wikipedia for a source, it is a good place to start.
That is not Wikipedia's fault, it is vandalism. BEsides, Professors's especially should know better than to use an online resouce like that, and it sounds to me like Rome deserves the shame they have.
that's the first thing i noticed. American Christian Conservative American teenager wearing a t-shirt promoting an Argentinian Atheist Communist Warrior.
The fact that they were spending so much time on Wikipedia during the course of 'world history' studies is somewhat disturbing. It wouldnt be best practice for them to be relying on it for research, and it wouldnt make sense for them to be examining just for the sake of scrutinizing because politics and WORLD HISTORY are 2 different subjects
There is no argument for creationism or intelligent design. That's why it was deleted from WikiPedia, which is supposed to be a source of actual information, not propaganda for a closed-minded ideology.
No Andy, people are not flocking to it for information. They are flocking to it to laugh at you, many probably assume that it's satire and don't even realise that they're laughing at you rather than with you.
what annoys me is that they complain of wikipedia having a liberal bias, but they are un-apologetic in the fact that conservapedia has a right wing, christian bias. they're just soooo fucking hypocritical
I'm a conservative/libertarian and I like wikipedia. Of course you have to be careful with it, but you can get much information in it. For instance, the word "fascist" has several definitions. A conventional dictionary almost never mentions the economic definition (government allowing some private ownership but with heavy taxation and regulation). Our economy contains heavy doses of fascism. If these folks want their own encyclopedia...fine. The more the merrier.
i don't get it. these people complain that wikipedia is way too liberal so they're argument isn't to create a site that is fair and balanced, but to create a site that is unfair and unbalanced to the other side... assuming wikipedia is "biased" as they claim it is.
I don't know how Andrew can consider Conservapedia a reliable resource when it is so openly, and blatantly, biased. The best source is one that is completely unbiased. True, in this world that does not exist, that is why people find the least biased source, and Conservapedia is far from that Also, if a comparison is size is made to Wikipedia, especially concerning non political things like basic science and taxonomy, then Wikipedia is a far better source.
I checked some articles on Conservapedia... if Wikipedia is biased, I don't know what kind of word we could use to describe how biased Conservapedia is... it's not even subtle.
I see where this guy went wrong... Stop using Wikipedia as a source! If you'd stop doing that, it wouldn't matter whether it had a bias towards reality or not.
No, not really. My mom is very Conservative, and it has not stopped me from becoming Liberal on my own. However, Conservapedia does not open itself up for genuine free expression of thought. Any view point that does not fall into a specific guidelines is quickly dismissed.
I've never heard anyone outside of America criticize Wikipedia for being biased... People in Iceland and in the rest of Europe laugh their asses off reading Conservapedia, if you're American and are wondering why so many people dislike America then the answer is pretty much "Conservapedia". (If you answered "because we hate your freedom lol" then gtfo) I'm not saying there aren't smart people in America; I know a lot of very smart Americans but why does America take everything to the extreme?
Another ridiculous Conservapedia entry under "Human Reproduction" is an artist's rendering of a a soul joining a fertilized egg at the moment of conception. I almost spit my drink out when I saw it.
I understand by now what sort of articles are expected there... so I limit my dissent to only minor lulz in the edit summaries. :( Other than that I mostly just participate in discussions, edit the occasional topic I know about and amuse myself watching the parodists/trolls/wandals. Also, Jinx... isn't it a little weird to point to a block log and say "dissenters aren't banned"?
On their atheism article, they have sections on " Atheism and suicide" and " Atheism and genocide", but go to their roman catholic church article, and they have nothing on the numerous genocides done in the name of christianity itself, Go to their article on the Koran, and they have a section on the " Verses of Violence"( as in violence towards non- muslims) within the Koran, but make no mention of the sections in the Bible which contain acts of unnecessary violence against non- christians.
Ok, thought as much. I mean I understand not liking a certain aspect of some guys political view, but to hate communists just sounds silly. It's like a scene in the movie Watchmen: "And you plan to give the people a new source of energy, one that is free! Why 'free' is just another word for socialism."
The name you are looking for is Pierre-Simon Laplace and his five volume Mécanique Céleste. It's shocking how proud these Conservapedia mutants are of their ignorance, although the site is funny to read. It's like an alternate universe.
I tried to find that article that discussed the acuracy and couldn't come across it. The only one I found was one done in 2005 that has been discredited. Could you by chance send me the link to the article you found your info on? I would love to include it in my paper but need to cite it.
Highlights of this video: After it's over, the next video is "How Ridiculous Are Conservatives?" with "Fainting Goats" in another. Most videos on the right under Suggestions are refuting/debunking Conservapedia articles. At 2:25 it looks like he's flipping through a "______ For Dummies" book and looks clearly confused at the contents. At 1:32 the girl is basically saying biased editors are trying to insert biased information into an article they're biased against... THUS CONSERVAPEDIA WAS BORN!
I think a lot of the people who are "flocking" to Conservapedia are there to check out some of the idiocy in the articles. I mean, there was a segment on Conservapedia on The Colbert Report, and I'm sure many viewers just wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
Conservapedia:
'When reality doesn't comply with my beliefs, I can change it & make it look like fact.'
Calls Wikipedia biased. Creates a website called Conservepedia.
Modern day problems require modern day solutions
@@Ho-mb2wb Its just a Hate site, Check the article on Women
It's conservative hence the name "Conservapedia". Rationalwiki, Wikipedia wants to make you think that they're telling facts about the real world objectively, yet they're actually liberally biased.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Examples of “hypocrisy”:
Well, it is the conservative world in which I am in, live with it :) live in America :)
I was going to create a site satirizing conservatives, but I see they did a good job of that all on their own
The. there's Liberapedia, which is a wiki and not a standalone website. There there's more ads flying at you.
"When we tried to edit wikipedia by adding false information, they removed that, and that is censorship." Wikipedia is intended for facts oml this is painful to watch
I'm Christian and this was embarrassing to watch
Real world: "Facts, knowledge, logic"
Andy Schlafly: "LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL! GOD BLESS AMERICA!"
It absolutely cracks me up that they claim they're trying to fix the problem of Wikipedia being too biased. Choose any topic and read that topic's page on both Wikipedia and Conservapedia. No matter what the topic is, it's pretty clear which page is more biased. Their article on gay marriage stood out as even more biased than most of their articles. They refused to even use the term marriage without quotation marks, which seems downright juvenile and immature.
Does this explain why it seems downright juvenile and immature?
Before mobile phones of any kind (that is before even car phones) no one would have ever used the phrase landline phone, those were all the phones in existence. Phrases like 'car phone' and 'cell phone' refer to other kinds of phones. Does it seem likewise with same sex marriage?
As far as I know, even (evangelical) Christian conservatives can use marriage metaphorically without the quotation marks, such as when referring to a union of dirt, rocks and plants.
Even their non political related page is biased, their page of "Video Games" is a clear example
@@CryptoIgnition Ha, yeah, I've seen that page in particular. Very biased.
It's Wikipedia for the intellectually stunted.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -- Stephen Colbert
Yeah, I think it’s come to that point.
Reality does not have a liberal bias. But Conservapedia is just complete bullshit, though.
Who needs standup comedians making fun of the right when you can just read any articles from Conservapedia?
"Obsessed with promoting the idea of evolution"
You mean posting facts to an information site?
I always read Conservapedia, provides a great amount of lols ^^
I can't believe those who write articles are serious, it's all so ridicolous it must be done on purpose!
You need to back to first grade English class.
2:46 That by DEFINITION is bias.
PS: I just noted the section "Reasonable Explanations for Atheism" in the article on Atheism on Conservapedia. So what are these (unbiased) explanations?
- Rebellion
- Moral depravity
- Superficiality
- Error
[...]
- Poor relationship with father
[...] etc.
Conservapedia truly is a great source of information.
They took the edits to creationism out of the article because IT HAS NO PLACE IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT EVOLUTION.
Whos from rationalwiki?
I am an avid visitor of conservapedia. I think everyone should check it out. It'll make you appreciate reality once you've returned to it after a visit on the site.
From ShoeOnHead’s vid lmao
"I can honestly believe that in certain parts of America now, people have started to mate with vegetables." - Jeremy Clarkson
Is that supposed to be a put down? Your comment is disgusting.
I'm Conservative leaning person, but even I can't take Conservapedia seriously
Why?
@@stephenbryant5251Why do you take it seriously?
I'm reading the article on dinosaurs and here are two choice quotes:
"Creation science asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation[3] approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans"
"Descriptions of dragons are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actually very likely dinosaurs."
They're definitely right about ancient history having an anti-American bias. The USA is hardly even mentioned in much of the liberal-biased ancient history literature.
yeah, it doesn’t say that america is the king of the milky way galaxy and that the greeks weren’t american enough
My favorite article on conservapedia is the one about "deceit". Guess which party lies all the time and which party never lies at all? You only get one guess :)
David Hendriks Republicans
@@samuelwolch1302 - Wrong, it's Democrats (and that's just in the US alone - in Canada, the Trudeau Liberals, the NDP, the Greens, the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois fit that bill).
Democrats lie!
I say, this Andy Schlafly guy is INSANE! Mad about the conservative ideology! So mad that it has taken over his life, his attitudes, and his passions for Jesus Christ. Amen.
I love how he says its not fair that wikipedia doesn't call homosexuals evil and immoral.
Conservapedia's article on the theory of evolution is impressive. Well done.
At 0:52:
The fact that people are flocking to a website doesn't necessarily mean they are going to there to get information. Some of the most popular websites are comedy sites.
Faith has no place next to knowledge.
1:12 If you look at Wikipedia's page on the Renaissance and hit Ctrl+f you can search "Christian" and find there are 7 Mentions of the word on the page. Only one of those are under the "religion tab" , it even goes as far as saying on the page, "In the revival of neo-Platonism Renaissance humanists did not reject Christianity; quite the contrary, many of the Renaissance's greatest works were devoted to it, and the Church patronized many works of Renaissance art." It points out the importance of the church during the time and their support. I can't believe they go as far as to say it "mentions nothing".
Conservapedia: The only place on the internet where posting accurate information is considered vandalism.
No no, don't put them in a nice place with white walls. That would prevent them from floating away when they deny the theory of gravity because it's "just a theory."
Conservapedia is responsible for more than 20000 failed projects.
Teachers should give out fails just for having a link to conservapedia in a bibliography.
0:50 LIES!!!
Wikipedia seems biased to me
I go on it for a good laugh!
1:29 "There are people who are obsessed with promoting the evolution issue".....LOL, thank god we can go to Conservapedia where there is no bias at all and no-one pushes ideas down your throat about a magic man in the sky who created everything in 7 Earth days (yes, an all powerful god works in a human timescale....).
God love you Conservapedia, great comedy is hard to come by these days!
No teacher would accept Conservapedia either, minus the homeschoolers who think of it as a good resource. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is very good for data mining. Though we, students, cannot use Wikipedia for a source, it is a good place to start.
Lack of conservative bias is not equal to anti-conservative bias.
wow, trying to undo the good of the internet.
One time I went to Conservapedia.
It was horrible.
"Barack Hussein Obama is supposedly from Hawaii"-Conservapedia
Pleas trust me not all homeschoolers are like this . I've been homeschooled and I'm a progressive agnostic and very tolerant .
That is not Wikipedia's fault, it is vandalism. BEsides, Professors's especially should know better than to use an online resouce like that, and it sounds to me like Rome deserves the shame they have.
that's the first thing i noticed.
American Christian Conservative American teenager wearing a t-shirt promoting an Argentinian Atheist Communist Warrior.
The sheer irony of these people complaining about bias is incredible...
America! Keep teaching your kids like this. I need cheap labour that's uneducated that I can outsource dull work to.
But when we think of liberal bias TODAY, we get a diferent view from historical liberalism. Today, liberal bias is actually very un-liberal.
All schools in Canada will never allow Wikipedia as a source...
"...and an out of context quote from Richard Dawkins (you can tell it's out of context if you follow their source)"
I noted that as well. LOL.
The fact that they were spending so much time on Wikipedia during the course of 'world history' studies is somewhat disturbing. It wouldnt be best practice for them to be relying on it for research, and it wouldnt make sense for them to be examining just for the sake of scrutinizing because politics and WORLD HISTORY are 2 different subjects
According, to Conservapedia anything not conservative is liberally-biased.
"Wikipedia has become unsuitable because it's become very biased"
Therefore we'll make our own wiki which doesn't even pretend to be unbiased....
Truth or not, they present one argument without giving the other sides argument, and I do believe that is BIAS.
There is no argument for creationism or intelligent design. That's why it was deleted from WikiPedia, which is supposed to be a source of actual information, not propaganda for a closed-minded ideology.
No Andy, people are not flocking to it for information. They are flocking to it to laugh at you, many probably assume that it's satire and don't even realise that they're laughing at you rather than with you.
what annoys me is that they complain of wikipedia having a liberal bias, but they are un-apologetic in the fact that conservapedia has a right wing, christian bias. they're just soooo fucking hypocritical
Dear God, this is REAL. Unf***ingbelievable.
The music is bloody perfect.
MenwithHill i would have preferred the theme from Monty Python personally
He's Phyllis Schlafly's son - tells you all you need to know.
I'm a conservative/libertarian and I like wikipedia. Of course you have to be careful with it, but you can get much information in it. For instance, the word "fascist" has several definitions. A conventional dictionary almost never mentions the economic definition (government allowing some private ownership but with heavy taxation and regulation). Our economy contains heavy doses of fascism. If these folks want their own encyclopedia...fine. The more the merrier.
Are you a mainstream conservative? Is Andrew Schlafly a mainstream conservative or are his beliefs beyond mainstream conservative?
I'm honestly surprised that their article on Jews doesn't seem to biased.
i don't get it. these people complain that wikipedia is way too liberal so they're argument isn't to create a site that is fair and balanced, but to create a site that is unfair and unbalanced to the other side... assuming wikipedia is "biased" as they claim it is.
I don't know how Andrew can consider Conservapedia a reliable resource when it is so openly, and blatantly, biased. The best source is one that is completely unbiased. True, in this world that does not exist, that is why people find the least biased source, and Conservapedia is far from that Also, if a comparison is size is made to Wikipedia, especially concerning non political things like basic science and taxonomy, then Wikipedia is a far better source.
Someone needs to save these kids from this lunatic.
Wikipedia is the 6th most visited website in the world.....Conservapedia is around the 50,000th most visited.....
So much for the "flocking"
I wasn’t expecting Assfly to sound like Squidward
Especially those of us whose minds are not clouded by the irrationality of faith.
I wonder if the happy little Consevatives even know that their renouned scientist Sir Isaac Newton was also a homosexual...
I checked some articles on Conservapedia... if Wikipedia is biased, I don't know what kind of word we could use to describe how biased Conservapedia is... it's not even subtle.
Indeed. It's quite funny that he's deluded into thinking that people actually genuinely use it as a point of reference.
only because it might offend Ned..Call people what hurts them if that's your intention
Conservapedia - the Content free encyclopedia
How many of the 41 million viewers were looking for a laugh instead of educational purposes?
It is sad how poorly educated some of America's youth are....
I see where this guy went wrong... Stop using Wikipedia as a source! If you'd stop doing that, it wouldn't matter whether it had a bias towards reality or not.
Good lord, I don't think you could find any whiter assemblage of people.
I hope all these kids have since gained the critical thinking skills Andrew Schlafly tried to suppress.
No, not really. My mom is very Conservative, and it has not stopped me from becoming Liberal on my own. However, Conservapedia does not open itself up for genuine free expression of thought. Any view point that does not fall into a specific guidelines is quickly dismissed.
Wait, so all the kids in his "class" are conservative? What are the odds of that...
"We've got our own way to express knowledge. " That says it all.
I've never heard anyone outside of America criticize Wikipedia for being biased...
People in Iceland and in the rest of Europe laugh their asses off reading Conservapedia, if you're American and are wondering why so many people dislike America then the answer is pretty much "Conservapedia". (If you answered "because we hate your freedom lol" then gtfo)
I'm not saying there aren't smart people in America; I know a lot of very smart Americans but why does America take everything to the extreme?
I can bet you a million dollars that people go to Conservapedia for the same reason they go to Uncyclopedia. TO GET A LAUGH.
"You're not going to get that fair treatment [Bible quotes about homosexuality] on wikipedia."
lololololol
Another ridiculous Conservapedia entry under "Human Reproduction" is an artist's rendering of a a soul joining a fertilized egg at the moment of conception. I almost spit my drink out when I saw it.
Hahahaha. Now it makes sense! Homeschoolers write Conservapedia.
A place where they can frolic free from reality, safe in the arms of Jesus.
I understand by now what sort of articles are expected there... so I limit my dissent to only minor lulz in the edit summaries. :(
Other than that I mostly just participate in discussions, edit the occasional topic I know about and amuse myself watching the parodists/trolls/wandals.
Also, Jinx... isn't it a little weird to point to a block log and say "dissenters aren't banned"?
I notice that there's one girl who seems to be talking, and ol' Andy. No other kids, no other parents, nothing.
Strange thing I have noticed...
If that happened then the drug smuggling rings would just re-emerge.
On their atheism article, they have sections on " Atheism and suicide" and " Atheism and genocide", but go to their roman catholic church article, and they have nothing on the numerous genocides done in the name of christianity itself, Go to their article on the Koran, and they have a section on the " Verses of Violence"( as in violence towards non- muslims) within the Koran, but make no mention of the sections in the Bible which contain acts of unnecessary violence against non- christians.
A room full of young minds... lost. How disgusting. How sad.
Ok, thought as much.
I mean I understand not liking a certain aspect of some guys political view, but to hate communists just sounds silly. It's like a scene in the movie Watchmen:
"And you plan to give the people a new source of energy, one that is free! Why 'free' is just another word for socialism."
The name you are looking for is Pierre-Simon Laplace and his five volume Mécanique Céleste. It's shocking how proud these Conservapedia mutants are of their ignorance, although the site is funny to read. It's like an alternate universe.
Those poor, delusional children. I pity them and their ideology.
I tried to find that article that discussed the acuracy and couldn't come across it. The only one I found was one done in 2005 that has been discredited. Could you by chance send me the link to the article you found your info on? I would love to include it in my paper but need to cite it.
0.56 proves just how deluded Andy is.
And the little girl has just been spoon fed her answers by Schlafly
Highlights of this video: After it's over, the next video is "How Ridiculous Are Conservatives?" with "Fainting Goats" in another. Most videos on the right under Suggestions are refuting/debunking Conservapedia articles. At 2:25 it looks like he's flipping through a "______ For Dummies" book and looks clearly confused at the contents. At 1:32 the girl is basically saying biased editors are trying to insert biased information into an article they're biased against... THUS CONSERVAPEDIA WAS BORN!
Good point. No one said Wikipedia is the definitive resource for pedagogy.
I think a lot of the people who are "flocking" to Conservapedia are there to check out some of the idiocy in the articles. I mean, there was a segment on Conservapedia on The Colbert Report, and I'm sure many viewers just wanted to see what all the fuss was about.
"darwin stated that black people maybe the missing link"
Besides that the dude was making this up.
I don't get how you can sound like Kermit the frog and have a deap voice like Darth Fuckin Vader at the same time.
'It welcomes all, like Americans do' unless you are gay, of course.
ten bucks says that guy is a really repressed homosexual.