This is funny, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI

What's your personnal reaction? He had some points, but some other seemed a lot closed minded.
I actually never used wikipedia to support a claim.

EDIT: Let me re-do this. Is Conservapedia suitable?

Is this an anti-nonreligious information who could be reliable.

Wikipedia is not allowed to be used in Academic study. Should you list wikipedia as one of your sources in an essay you will be marked down heavily in most if not all Universities.

There are plenty of legitimate sources of information in libraries and other websites.

internutt:
Wikipedia is not allowed to be used in Academic study. Should you list wikipedia as one of your sources in an essay you will be marked down heavily in most if not all Universities.

There are plenty of legitimate sources of information in libraries and other websites.

Yeah, I know. Not just marked down, but ignored.

internutt:
Wikipedia is not allowed to be used in Academic study. Should you list wikipedia as one of your sources in an essay you will be marked down heavily in most if not all Universities.

There are plenty of legitimate sources of information in libraries and other websites.

The problem with Wikipedia isn't that it's not legitimate, it's that it is tertiary. An essay at university should be based on secondary and primary sources.

I think that conservatives's problem is that they think it's too late for logical people to take them seriously so they may as well be as extreme and weird as they want. But it doesn't have to be too late. If more conservatives would act logically and just like a regular group they could still be on the same level as liberals.

I took a quick look at their website, the evolution section. The article spoke a lot about Hitler's views and how this lead him to persecute Jews. What? It just read like they wanted to debunk Evolution rather than write an article about it. I am Christian, do not put us all in the conservative wing, be it left or right.

Also interestingly, the Liberal bias page was much larger and more in depth than the conservative bias. Ironically they never pointed to themselves in the article.

internutt:
Wikipedia is not allowed to be used in Academic study. Should you list wikipedia as one of your sources in an essay you will be marked down heavily in most if not all Universities.

There are plenty of legitimate sources of information in libraries and other websites.

I have yet to have that happen. I'm just finishing up my BFA and on occasion use Wikipedia. Would never use it as my main source mind you, but as a secondary its good to have.

internutt:
I took a quick look at their website, the evolution section. The article spoke a lot about Hitler's views and how this lead him to persecute Jews. What? It just read like they wanted to debunk Evolution rather than write an article about it.

Oh in the name of my heathen gods, they're using Jack Chick as a source on evolution. JACK CHICK! I didn't think anyone beyond Fred Phelps' cult took ANYTHING he said seriously!

The point of Wikipedia is to be neutralistic.

The point of conservapedia is to be horrendously right-wing.

Being a pretty left-wing guy, I absolutely hate the concept.

Well, I like it.

Taxi Driver:
Well let's see which one better explains a topic...

The one that gives in depth information on many, if not most of the aspects of evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Or the one that speaks of evolution only in some crude attempt to associate it with evil, and incorrectness?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Title: Evolution
Side Picture: Adolf Hitler
I see what they did there...

Saskwach:

Taxi Driver:
Well let's see which one better explains a topic...

The one that gives in depth information on many, if not most of the aspects of evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Or the one that speaks of evolution only in some crude attempt to associate it with evil, and incorrectness?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Title: Evolution
Side Picture: Adolf Hitler
I see what they did there...

You should see their article on Charles Darwin. It's hilarious.

I really didn't know that Darwin died of guilt from creating the theory of evolution.

Well, I found this quite entertaining http://www.conservapedia.com/Evangelical_atheist

"denying any correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of Christianity"
"insisting that it is hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church"
"utilizing deceit if it advances atheistic goals"
I don't feel the need to elaborate on this.

Have you seen their article on Homosexuality? I am so fucking pissed off right now...

Stupid as fuck conservatives:
Gay life consists of immoral sexual activity, particularly homosexual or bisexual. The gay lifestyle, written about as early as the Victorian Era, is contrary to established morality, usually consisting of flagrant promiscuity.

.

I'm going to go out and shoot some me some Right Wings...

Saskwach:

Taxi Driver:
Well let's see which one better explains a topic...

The one that gives in depth information on many, if not most of the aspects of evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Or the one that speaks of evolution only in some crude attempt to associate it with evil, and incorrectness?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Title: Evolution
Side Picture: Adolf Hitler
I see what they did there...

Those sneaky devils.

I saw an incredible rebuttal in the Talk Page on their article on evolution, which was for some reason ignored. I'm trying to figure out why, but my poor, Darwinist brain just can't put two and two together...

... Yeh, that's bullshit. Seriously though, they say that Wikipedia is biased, but then turn around and make this little abomination of hate. I really do wonder what things are being put in those poor kids' heads.

Edit:

Conservapedia:
Multiple studies have shown a correlation between violent video games and levels of real life violence

I had a look at the source cited for this, and found something interesting... "violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass". According this this source, video games make me dumber...

Conservapedia:
Video game reviewers have sometimes unjustly attacked and reviewed games where religion plays a notable role.

... No, it can't be because they play like shit...

Does anyone else think that these people are fucked up

conservapedia:
lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.[3] The abstract for this study indicated that "lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity.

seriously.... wtf

I find it funny how some articles do not have any of these stupid things in them (WoW, DnD, stuff like that), but others are so full of them that it's just not funny any more.

Abortion and Breast Cancer

The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.[5] Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy.[6] It is undisputed that childbirth protects against breast cancer, and thus early termination of pregnancy must increase the risk of cancer for the mother compared to carrying that same pregnancy to birth. Yet the abortion industry conceals this increased risk, just as the tobacco industry concealed its cancer risk for decades.[7]

A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices:
# Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[4]
# Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=homosexuality&ns0=1&searchx=Search

Really, this site should be put down, and so should the people who've made it.

Alleged_Alec:
Really, this site should be put down, and so should the people who've made it.

No way.

Its even more hilarious than uncyclopedia!

smallharmlesskitten:
Does anyone else think that these people are fucked up

In short, yes... I've rarely felt sicker than when I read its article on evolution... Talk about a completely skewed argument that's been so twisted, it resembles a box of Arby's curly-fries

From what I've read, I don't even dare to click the links now.

for those who don't know. the people on websites like encyclopaedia dramatica and 4chan banded together to constantly vandalise conservipedia then send links to it to make the evil evil republicans seem even more evil. The weird thing is they very rarely edit it back.

did anyone else notice that when he was talking about how wikipedia started off with good intentions he had to fight with himself to stop himself going "until the foreigners and lie-berals came on and started killing it!"

I do love though how they said that Darwin's theory of evolution was not created by years of research but rather him having a 'psychiatric illness'

Top 10 pages for Wikipedia 2007

1- Main page
3- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
5- Guitar hero 3
6- The United States
8- Deaths in 2007
9 Heroes the TV series
10- Transformers the movie

Top 10 pages for conservapedia 2007

1- Main Page
2- Homosexuality
3- Homosexuality and Hepatitis
4- Homosexuality and Promiscuity
5- Homosexuality and Parasites
6- Homosexuality and gonorrhea
7- Homosexuality and domestic violence
8- gay bowel syndrome
9- Homosexuality and syphilis
10-Homosexuality and mental health

description of Bill Clintons presidency

Clinton was known for his positive and outspoken tolerance of Homosexuality

What in the name of the Cake is wrong with conservatives

smallharmlesskitten:

What in the name of the Cake is wrong with conservatives

I've gotta believe it's not all of them, mate... If it is, then I think I might move to Antarctica

haha! you should see their page on Richard Dawkins! I am genuinely surprised they did not photoshop on horns and give him red eyes.

I've always been disturbed by the unwillingness of radical conservative Christians to hear (or allow their children to hear) ideas that disagree with their own.
Why is hearing a different idea such a bad thing? If God is truly a part of their lives, why would a dissenting view change any of that? I would think a scholarly argument about faith would only serve to strengthen ones convictions and bring him/her closer to God.
However certain radical Christians seem to have a fear of opinions that differ from their own. For example, the cinematic release of The Golden Compass caused quite a stir because of its Atheist author and Anti-church plot elements. Some radical Christians saw this movie as a sort of gateway drug into atheism. I can understand the idea that a young kid who likes the movie could potentially want to read the books, but still, the best gateway to Atheism is Catholic school or any other sort of private faith-based school.

I declare no allegiance to any particular religion, but my mind is open to the ideas each one has to offer, and such hateful crap like this even if edited by member of 4chan is just horrifying. The video still harshly condemned homosexuality. I just think content like that belongs in an encyclopedia unless the words "Radical Christian believe that" preface such hate.

zirnitra:
haha! you should see their page on Richard Dawkins! I am genuinely surprised they did not photoshop on horns and give him red eyes.

Just give them time, they need to work in him eatting a baby too.

I wonder if they have an article on Spore or Porn

They DO!!!! for spore i mean haven't checked for porn yet

It has next to nothing....

lol Porn is the spawn of Satan

Well they do need time to create lies, generate false findings from studies and other such things.