An 'online encyclopedia' with plenty of 'accurate information' made by 'dedicated conservatives'.

In other words, a website full of ignorant, biased BS made almost entirely by trolls (depressingly, genuine believers of it do exist) to parody the viewpoints of far right wing.

An instant fail if you use it to help you with your homework. I learnt this the hard way, and when I used it for my 5th class (the equivalent of 5th grade for all those Americans reading this) project on space, I only passed because my dad said it was all bullshit.

A Wikipedia satire website that spoofs far-right Christian fundamentalism. It teasingly promotes Young Earth Creationism over evolution, jokingly labels atheism as an insidious evil infecting the world, and...wait, what? You gotta be kidding me - that site is SERIOUS?!? Good lord.

a conservative wiki with articles (95+%?) that always somehow end up either blaming Liberals and non-Christians for some reason or another. It also seems to strongly imply one's religious beliefs has a connection to ones capability of doing certain things (e.g. violence).

due to the fact that it's a wiki some these examples might not be accurate anymore.

some examples of bias/lies/inaccuracies on conservapedia :

#1 socialism - we see a picture of Hitler on the top of the page

Nazism is more of an ideology of its own than anything else, it would be more accurate to place it in its own article than be under socialism. Also it also puts communism under this too, rather inaccurate.

#2 Fredrich Nietzsche - the first section is calling him crazy

WTF?! they didn't even explain what his philosophical views are and he's declared crazy right at the beginning?!

#3 Islam - "the most violent religion"

I don't care if this is true or not but this is this is bad etiquette calling it right off the bat, not to mention it also implies there's something questionable about it

#4 Bill Clinton - all the credits of economic success should belong to Republicans (implied)

really? please explain why public opinion favored him during the government shutdown and impeachment

#5 Grand Theft Auto

I don't even know where to begin on this...

A webpage which serves a purpose of countering Wikipiedia's alleged bias towards "liberalism." The truth is, it's just an intolerant, religious persn that bashes everything that goes against his religious, political, and scientific views, that most closely resemble those of a caveman. An apparently strong believer in the Jonah in the whale fairy tale of the bible, he insists that evolutionists suffer a syndrome called "evolution syndrome" and that we just "somehow" know that we came from other species. In what his words would be, he is a false prophet.

Helpful encyclopedia.

A fundamentalist Christian wiki encyclopaedia project which promotes Biblical creation and rejects science. Heavily criticised by both conservatives and liberals, it is the subject of ridicule from those who are used to getting information without a heavy dose of fundamentalist hilarity.

A site that claims to offer an alternative to the "liberal bias" of Wikipedia. It ultimately fails because, as we have learned with Fox News, fighting bias with bias only leads to more bias. One of the best humor sites on the web.

A wiki, very similar to wikipedia on everything. However..i have noticed many hypocrisies and hmm, well crackpot theories.

The hypocrisy which pisses me off most is that in the "Examples of Bias in wikipedia" article http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia)

number 22. (out of 133 ffs)reads:

"Wikipedia has an extensive entry on "Creation myth".40 Describing Creationism as a "myth" is yet another attempt to disparage Christians, and although the theory of evolution satisfies Wikipedia's definition of "myth", Wikipedia never describes it as a "myth". "

Fair enough, slightly mental, but he has a point...yes?
However...looking at the article on the conservapedia article "Dreamtime", an australlian aboriginal creation story; IT is described as a myth.

So Christian creationism is NOT a myth but any other creationism is?? hmmm...



also on the article about kangaroos (boing boing) there is a large 3 paragraph section on the Young Earth Creationist theory and only 1/2 a sentence on the evolutionary theory

so the YEC theory which is probably less supported than evolution recieves more coverage than a well established and most probably correct theory.