• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conservopedia

How well does it mesh with your world view?

  • I am conservative and I think it is very valid to my world view

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • I am a conservative and I think its somewhat valid to my world view

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • I am a conservative and it is not at all valid to my world view

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • I am a liberal and I think it is very valid to my world view

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • I am a liberal and I think it is somewhat valid to my world view

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am a liberal and it is not at all valid to my world view

    Votes: 10 29.4%
  • I am a libertarian/other and it is very valid to my world view

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am a libertarian/other and it is somewhat valid to my world view

    Votes: 3 8.8%
  • I am a libertarian/other and it is not at all valid to my world view

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • Other (in a post)

    Votes: 8 23.5%

  • Total voters
    34
Why would it not be valid to anyone's world view? It seems to me that those who think that are simply closed-minded.

Oh lookie, most are admitted liberals.

Well being that it is CONSERVAPEDIA... of course liberals wouldn't agree with it.
 
Well being that it is CONSERVAPEDIA... of course liberals wouldn't agree with it.
From what I've read there, admittedly not much, they are not merely claiming points of view but simple findings of facts. When opposing views are expressed how is that not valid to your world view?

For example, I believe that atheists are wrong in their beliefs. But by exploring their stated rationale I have questioned my own Faith and it has been strengthened.
 
Did you know that Jesus Christ is the person that changed the world forever with his teaching of love and faith?
 
I don't know if I would credit Jesus as the only person who taught the world to love, be faithful, and not to lie. He is the one that taught Christians that.
 
Last edited:
Other: What is it?

But after reading the thread, I know, at least obliquely.
 
Personally, i think much of it is edited by people trying to make conservatives look bad. If it's all made up, it wouldn't really be valid to anyone's wordlview.

I agree that some of it made be edited to make the site look stupid. But also I remember reading some articles like the Bible Project and they are the same. So, sadly I don't know if we will ever know how much of it is what the original author wrote.
 
I'm an independent, and I think the writers of conservapedia are arrogant and disrespectful towards liberals. Almost all of their site updates and news updates are about bashing liberals and Obama. It would be nicer and more respectable if they were to build up the conservative world view with facts instead of bashing liberals and Obama. However, much of what I find on the site is pretty valid.
 
Some background.

Conservapedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conservapedia was created in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard-educated attorney and a homeschool teacher.[4] He felt the need to start the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred.[12] Although he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast", as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly became concerned about bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.[13] Schlafly expressed hope that Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived in Wikipedia.[5][7][14]

The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum organization, uses material for various online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.[6][15][16] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.[16]

Running on MediaWiki software,[3][6] the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest articles dating from November 22.[5][6][14] As of October 2009, Conservapedia contains over 32,316 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.[17] Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include links to news articles and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.[18] The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion and politics.[19] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages.[7][20] It was, at one point, the most-viewed page on the site.[21]

Conservapedia has unique editorial policies designed to prevent what Schlafly sees as structural and ideological problems with Wikipedia and generalized vandalism.
[edit] Differences from Wikipedia

Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia. Articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as criticism of its alleged liberal ideology.[7] Launching the online encyclopedia project, Schlafly asserted the need for an alternative to Wikipedia due to editorial philosophy conflicts. The site's "Conservapedia Commandments"[22] differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include following a neutral point of view[23] and avoiding original research.[24][25] In response to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated: "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader",[5] and "Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob".[26]

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds—so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach".[14] On March 7, 2007 Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that Wikipedia articles apparently prefer to use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly. In response to Schlafly's claim that the Wikipedia policy of allowing both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias,[27][28][29] Redmond argued that Wikipedia attracts contributors worldwide and so must use Common Era notation to be more neutral, since CE notation has only a nominal, not numerical, difference with the AD format. He also cited the Wikipedia policies regarding citation of sources and cooperation with other contributors as basis for allowing any factual information to be added.[30]
 
Last edited:
What is the term for right wing ideology that is indistinguishable from satire?
 
I'm an independent, and I think the writers of conservapedia are arrogant and disrespectful towards liberals. Almost all of their site updates and news updates are about bashing liberals and Obama. It would be nicer and more respectable if they were to build up the conservative world view with facts instead of bashing liberals and Obama. However, much of what I find on the site is pretty valid.

In today's world, it is far more likely that you will hear someone bashing another's position then to dare to present their own. Few care for solutions. They just care how to attack the other guy. The entire political process is filled with cowards.
 
Who cares? It's no worse than moveon.org

Same kind of site, just from the other end.
 
Sure they are, one talks about issues from a decidedly liberal stance the other from a conservative stance. Both are pretty ridiculous.

I didn't know that MoveOn pushed factually incorrect views about science that often stray into direct fantasy and consider Aninism to be testable science.
 
I always thought it was a joke site.
Half of it's content is. It was created by Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllus Schlafly) to be a serious site, but at one point, several long time admins admitted that they were just writing parody all along and they were banned. Apparently Andy couldn't even tell the difference. Here's an example of some entries he's written:

"Ravaged by socialism and gay marriage, Spain loses in the 2010 Winter Olympics."

"Ravaged by Atheism, England loses to a minor newcomer US soccer team."

"Everything on our site is sourced, and if there isn't a source it's because of liberal censorship"

"Liberals say that girls are just as good at math as boys are. I say they're not."

"Fox News is too liberal"

etc etc
 
I didn't know that MoveOn pushed factually incorrect views about science that often stray into direct fantasy and consider Aninism to be testable science.

Out of curiosity I looked up aninism on conservapedia and found nothing. Then I looked up Animism and found this:

Animism is the belief that all things in creation have a spirit. Animists commonly perform rituals to stay in harmony with the spirits of nature and with the spirits of their ancestors. Animism was the primary religion of most peoples of the world until the advent of modern religions such as Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. The remnants of animistic beliefs can still be found in various actions designed for protection from evil spirits, such as placing a horseshoe over a doorway or knocking on wood. Customs that originated with animistic beliefs include decorating a Christmas tree and hanging a sprig of mistletoe.

Not that I am trying to stick up for them but they don't say anything about it being a science.
 
Back
Top Bottom