Posted by: Jim | June 19, 2007


“The Truth Shall Set You Free” … as long as the truth conforms to the principles adhered to at .That’s right, the right-wing believes that Wikipedia is riddled with non-truth. What Wikipedia strives for–a doggedly open debate about facts–results in what conservatives feel is a liberal bias. How very interesting. And so, Conservapedia was born. The Los Angeles Times covered an article in today’s paper about this.

It fascinates me for several reasons.

First, this new wiki is fraught with outright lies mixed with a good deal of status quo truth. This will cause it to appear as a viable resource to some, and result in the spread of misinformation. This is exactly the type of thing people fear from the original Wikipedia, but which hasn’t manifested itself to any great extent.  Until now.

Second, it appears as if the Religious Right (truly the term “conservatives” would be too broadly applied here) have so thoroughly gone off the deep end that they require a parallell set of resource tools to corroborate their story. I can see it now: radical right-wing Senators will be quoting Conservapedia as a credible source on the floor of Congress. The resulting uproar would appear as hair-splitting.

Third, this causes me grave concern. It is appearing more and more as if America has two distinct cultural groups. I may sound like an alarmist here, but the last time the country was so polarized that the two groups could not agree on how words are to be defined, the outcome was not pretty. A nation needs a single culture and zeitgeist to be unified. It doesn’t appear that we currently have that.

Fourth, I encourage everyone to contribute facts to Conservapedia, as in their case, the Truth truly Shall Set Them Free.



  1. How about Psychopedia? Historical and factual insights from a serial killer point of view?

    Hell, we can have all kinds of ‘pedias: Retardopedia, Pedophilopedia, NeoNazipedia, Terrorpedia…

    After all, facts are just opinions, right? Truth is where you find it…or make it up!

    Actually I’m not worried about this; If anyone can go in there and mess with the ‘facts’, then this thing will just turn into chaos as the rest of us get in there and piss all over their parade. it won’t be taken seriously enough to be more than a parody of itself. On the other hand, if they attempt to control it, well, it won’t be a community forum anymore, and somebody will just expose that and make them look like the amateurs they are.

    * * *

  2. Unbelieveable.

    Thanks for posting this.

  3. The whole reason Conservapedia exists is because, in the words of “right-wing political pundit” Stephen Colbert, “The facts skew liberal.”

    Can’t have that now, can we?

  4. LOL … I knew Stephen would come up somehow.

    BTW, this has also been posted to

  5. Here’s a surprise –Conservapedia was started by Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis. His own words pretty much sum it up:

    “We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them,” Schlafly writes in his mission statement. “Beyond that we welcome the facts.”

    At this moment, Conservapedia’s front page has a giant image of the Los Angeles Times’ nameplate, under which is written:


    The LA Times praised our entries on the tuba, Claude Monet, the nation of Latvia, Robin Hood, polygons, and The Renaissance.”

    No mention at all of the various criticisms in the piece, on the subjects of breast cancer, kangaroos, etc.

    No defensive response yet from reTardoraddo? He must be off composing his Conservapedia article on The Bible Code.

  6. At long last, common ground. Conservatives have finally found something we can all agree on. Polygons.

    I’m just glad to see them acknowledge that SOMETHING can possibly have multiple sides.

    * * *

  7. Wikipedia is not liberal, it is balanced. But I suppose it hurts the brains of conservatives to see their heroes criticised and their enemies not tarred-and-feathered. They will clearly need a police force to maintain the ideological purity of their project.

    This is a beautifully stupid sentence from the Hillary Clinton entry.

    “When the Clintons left the White House, they were accused of taking furniture that belonged not to them, but to the White House.[19] Stealing is a violation of the ten commandments, regardless of the circumstances.”

    What an amazing non sequitur!

  8. The entry on Chavez is also illuminating (32 pages of info on Wikipedia, 2 pages on Conservatopedia). I don’t know how anybody could consider this opening paragraph to have the objectivity expected of an encyclopaedia.

    “Hugo Chávez (b. July 28, 1954) is the repressive dictator of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Chávez assumed power as President in 1998 and pledged to aid Venezuela’s poor majority… Chávez has launched Bolivarian Missions, whose alleged goals are to combat disease, illiteracy, malnutrition, poverty, and other “social ills”. Chávez openly encourages alternative models of economic development than those of “United States’ Capitalism”.”

    Another thing that is also clear from reading the entries is that Everything has Value only if it is related to the United States in some way (although, of course, Chavez providing cheap oil to poor people in the US is not mentioned).

  9. Even I think looks goofy. Seriously.

  10. Whoa.

  11. No “Liberalpedia” yet, at least not one on this scale. Too bad, I need some fresh material.


  12. There is a real “neonazipedia” called “Metapedia” – Conservapedia doesn’t like them

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: