Illogicopedia vs Conservapedia deathmatch! Options

[Selina]

illogicopedia.org/wiki/IllogiNews:Conservapedia_becomes_the_sum_of_all_human_knowledge

• illogicopedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson


conservapedia.com/U.S._Supreme_Court "DANGER"

[The Joy]

illogicopedia.org/wiki/IllogiNews:Conservapedia_becomes_the_sum_of_all_human_knowledge

• illogicopedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson


conservapedia.com/U.S._Supreme_Court "DANGER"

(Begin rant (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif))
Every time I read anything from Conservapedia, my faith in humanity sinks to new lows. I honestly cannot fathom the mindset of entrenched fundamentalist U.S. conservatives and the fact that they are so powerful in U.S. politics and society. It saddens me that so many of my fellow Southerners adhere to the crap Andy Schlafly and the Fox News weirdos spout off with their pseudo-history about the U.S. and that the U.S. Constitution only applies to evangelical Christians, among other things. I sometimes feel so alone surrounded by such people that I just want to scream.
(End rant (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) )

Illogicopedia looks like a spin-off of Uncyclopedia. I still prefer the pre-Wikia Uncyclopedia pages. I once forgot I was reading Uncyclopedia and thought I was reading a Wikipedia article on Hilary Clinton. It took me a few paragraphs to realize it was an Uncyclopedia page, not a Wikipedia page. Take from that what you will! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Whenever I hear the name "Schlafly" I go (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

Unfortunately I don't have any hair left to tear out....
So I try not to think about them....

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Michaeldsuarez]

Illogicopedia looks like a spin-off of Uncyclopedia.

It looks like a spin-off because it is a spin-off. Illogicopedia was created by Uncyclopedia users to house the sort of nonsense Uncyclopedia wouldn't host. Illogicopedia used to be hosted on Wikia, but Illogicopedia and Wikia had a falling out due to Wikia's large ads and new skin.

[Selina]

I am going to call it Erisopedia

[The Joy]

Whenever I hear the name "Schlafly" I go (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

Unfortunately I don't have any hair left to tear out....
So I try not to think about them....

I shall be bald with you shortly, Eric!

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=M...ev&oldid=953187

I find it ironic that Conservapedia quotes Barry Goldwater, who was certainly not a "conservative" by Conservapedia/Andy Schlafly standards. He was for separation of church and state, as well as allowing women to have abortions. Barry Goldwater and Andy Schlafly would not get along on most things except maybe nuking communists.

http://conservapedia.com/The_South

Sweet Dr. Frankenstein of Rogers and Hammerstein! Since when has Oklahoma ever been part of The South!?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Edit:

http://conservapedia.com/John_Maynard_Keynes

John Maynard Keynes (5 June 1883 - 21 April 1946) was an incompetent liberal British economist, pedophile and one of the most persuasive frauds of the 20th century. [1] In 2010, his native land of Britain (which is deeply in debt) repudiated his economic folly of government deficit spending through the implementation of an austerity budget during a period of economic difficulty.[2][3] Although government certainly is necessary, the more efficient private sector is better at creating economically productive jobs and other economic activity such as investing.

...

It is ironic that liberals such as Barack Obama advocate Keynesian economic concepts since they are violating one of John Maynard Keynes' key principles. Keynes advocated having governments run budget surpluses during good economic times.[5] In addition, Keynes advocated that governments should increase government spending during difficult times and even engage in deficit spending. Keynes was against large structural deficits as he believed they are a drag on the economy.[6] Liberals such as Barack Obama advocate massive U.S. government spending during a period when the federal government already has a massive amount of existing debt. Furthermore, Obama's colossal government spending was inefficient and did not pull the American economy out of its economic problems, but merely buried the U.S. economy under more debt.

And it goes on. What a load of... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

[Fusion]

John Maynard Keynes (5 June 1883 - 21 April 1946) was an incompetent liberal British economist, pedophile

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)
Quick someone! Move this thread to the Whine Cellar! We must have Ottava's views immediately!

Is Ottava blocked on Conservapedia?

[SB_Johnny]

Is Ottava blocked yet on Conservapedia?

Fixed that for ya.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Is Ottava blocked on Conservapedia?

http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Ottava

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=S...e=User%3AOttava

No.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Fusion]

Is Ottava blocked on Conservapedia?

http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Ottava

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=S...e=User%3AOttava

No.

Oh of course he will not be blocked there. He is giving them invaluable content.

http://conservapedia.com/Kubla_Khan

[Mister Die]

Imagine if Conservapedia was all that existed and there was no way of getting a Liberapedia or "neutral" encyclopedia or what have you. I can imagine thousands of crypto-liberal editors working on articles with as little to do with the interests of American Conservatives as is possible, sorta like how people in the Eastern Bloc who weren't communists tended to study and publish on subjects with little ideological oversight. I'd imagine an article in, say, a 1950's-80's Polish encyclopedia on the geographic distribution of bears in Poland would be a lot less ideologically regulated than, say, an article on the establishment of people's democracy in Poland.

[Fusion]

Imagine if Conservapedia was all that existed and there was no way of getting a Liberapedia or "neutral" encyclopedia or what have you. I can imagine thousands of crypto-liberal editors working on articles with as little to do with the interests of American Conservatives as is possible, sorta like how people in the Eastern Bloc who weren't communists tended to study and publish on subjects with little ideological oversight. I'd imagine an article in, say, a 1950's-80's Polish encyclopedia on the geographic distribution of bears in Poland would be a lot less ideologically regulated than, say, an article on the establishment of people's democracy in Poland.

There are many articles on Conservapedia already that have no obvious ideology bias. For example there are articles on mathematics. While as the Nazis proved you could slant even those (they stopped people studying the work of "degenerate" mathematicians) I see no evidence of such there.

[The Joy]

http://conservapedia.com/Template:Liberalism

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

And why is the "Liberal Characteristics and Traits" placed with the "Nazi Party" article? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

The socialism Hitler advocated is much closer to that of Soviet communism than liberals are willing to admit, or than many people realize,[3] especially those who think in terms of "right wing" and "left wing" politics.

http://conservapedia.com/Nazi_Party

Oh, Abe Lincoln! Dwight Eisenhower! Colin Powell! Barry Goldwater! Look what these weirdoes have done to your party and our country! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

At least if I ever have low blood pressure issues, I'll know where to go for a cure. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Text]

The correct answer is "I'm a fan of fantasy and fiction, so both sites, and Wikipedia as well, are alright". (adapted from Brandon Harris's answer at Reddit)

[radek]

Whenever I hear the name "Schlafly" I go (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

Unfortunately I don't have any hair left to tear out....
So I try not to think about them....

I shall be bald with you shortly, Eric!

http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=M...ev&oldid=953187

I find it ironic that Conservapedia quotes Barry Goldwater, who was certainly not a "conservative" by Conservapedia/Andy Schlafly standards. He was for separation of church and state, as well as allowing women to have abortions. Barry Goldwater and Andy Schlafly would not get along on most things except maybe nuking communists.

http://conservapedia.com/The_South

Sweet Dr. Frankenstein of Rogers and Hammerstein! Since when has Oklahoma ever been part of The South!?! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Edit:

http://conservapedia.com/John_Maynard_Keynes

John Maynard Keynes (5 June 1883 - 21 April 1946) was an incompetent liberal British economist, pedophile and one of the most persuasive frauds of the 20th century. [1] In 2010, his native land of Britain (which is deeply in debt) repudiated his economic folly of government deficit spending through the implementation of an austerity budget during a period of economic difficulty.[2][3] Although government certainly is necessary, the more efficient private sector is better at creating economically productive jobs and other economic activity such as investing.

...

It is ironic that liberals such as Barack Obama advocate Keynesian economic concepts since they are violating one of John Maynard Keynes' key principles. Keynes advocated having governments run budget surpluses during good economic times.[5] In addition, Keynes advocated that governments should increase government spending during difficult times and even engage in deficit spending. Keynes was against large structural deficits as he believed they are a drag on the economy.[6] Liberals such as Barack Obama advocate massive U.S. government spending during a period when the federal government already has a massive amount of existing debt. Furthermore, Obama's colossal government spending was inefficient and did not pull the American economy out of its economic problems, but merely buried the U.S. economy under more debt.

And it goes on. What a load of... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Check the history. That article was actually half way decent before that Conservative fellar got hold of it. I remember looking up an article on Conservapedia related to Race and Intelligent once an finding that it had less racist crap in it than the corresponding Wikipedia article (I don't remember the details). Same for immigration. Who knows what happened to these in the mean time. I dunno, what is the active editor population of that site?

[carbuncle]

There are many articles on Conservapedia already that have no obvious ideology bias. For example there are articles on mathematics. While as the Nazis proved you could slant even those (they stopped people studying the work of "degenerate" mathematicians) I see no evidence of such there.

What name do you edit under there?

[iii]

For example there are articles on mathematics. While as the Nazis proved you could slant even those (they stopped people studying the work of "degenerate" mathematicians) I see no evidence of such there.

O RLY?

[TungstenCarbide]

http://conservapedia.com/Template:Liberalism

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Pull up Template:conservatism and view side by side. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[The Joy]

http://conservapedia.com/Template:Liberalism

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Pull up Template:conservatism and view side by side. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) over 9.000!

Thank goodness Conservapedia is buried in Google searches or I would have a conniption. The history major in me cries every time I see the Founding Fathers being dragged through the mud.

At least their article on Jimbo Wales is decent! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

http://conservapedia.com/Jimmy_Wales

[Mister Die]

Some articles they have are laughably short and good examples of what Wikipedia calls "coatrack" articles.

Enver Hoxha was the Stalinist dictator of Albania from 1944 to his death in 1985.

In 1967, he banned all religions from Albania.

See also

Chicago Area Friends of Albania

No date of birth, no date of death, no biographical information outside of "he led Albania and was a 'Stalinist' atheist" and apparently the Chicago Area Friends of Albania is relevant to Hoxha's life and work, rather than being a small mid-80's organization that a certain left-wing individual (and one-time Wikipedian) participated in for a while. Their article on Albania itself is mostly copied from elsewhere.

I remember looking up an article on Conservapedia related to Race and Intelligent once an finding that it had less racist crap in it than the corresponding Wikipedia article (I don't remember the details). Same for immigration. Who knows what happened to these in the mean time. I dunno, what is the active editor population of that site?

I think the main problem is that Conservapedia is much like Wikipedia in that you'll get someone who actually knows a lot about a subject (only in Conservapedia's case it tends to come from banned Wikipedians continuing their work on Conservapedia in protest) who decide to edit articles so that they are actually pretty good and not hatchet jobs, but then the mass of fundamentalist Christians who want everything to be as skewed towards one single point of view as is possible emerge, so instead of (using a hypothetical example) "Andy Dick is a comedian" you'd get "Andy Dick is a depraved bisexual atheistic pedophile and liberal whose comedy routine is terrible. Dick is, according to World Net Daily, a profoundly anti-American person who, like all atheists, liberals, and everyone not heterosexual, has had run-ins with depression and the law." Said decent editors then either retire from the project or engage in arduous work to make the article not-insane, which tends to result in them being banned for "liberal bias."

Replace "fundamentalist Christians" with "an unending stream of people who don't know enough about a subject to significantly contribute to an article but do anyway" and you have Wikipedia.

Here's an example of an article that's obviously intended to be dead on arrival in-re not being a hatchet job: http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity

196 citations. The Wikipedia article on Joseph Stalin has 311. An article basically saying "ATHEISTS ARE FAT LOL!!!" has 63% of the amount of citations of the Stalin article. The Stalin article on Conservapedia itself has 10 citations, so an article equating obesity and atheism has 1960% more citations.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: