Conservapedia: Your New Source for "facts."

[Revoltingest]

I am definitely not.
Sometimes you are scary.

Thank you!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Did you notice "a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers?"

Where are Wikipeida user bound for ha ha?

"Several Wikipedians have criticized Wikipedia's large and growing regulation, which includes over 50 policies and nearly 150,000 words as of 2014.[150][151]
Critics have stated that Wikipedia exhibits systemic bias. Columnist and journalist Edwin Black criticizes Wikipedia for being a mixture of "truth, half truth, and some falsehoods".[20] Articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education and The Journal of Academic Librarianship have criticized Wikipedia's Undue Weight policy, concluding that the fact that Wikipedia explicitly is not designed to provide correct information about a subject, but rather focus on all the major viewpoints on the subject and give less attention to minor ones, creates omissions that can lead to false beliefs based on incomplete information.[152][153][154]

Journalists Oliver Kamm and Edwin Black noted how articles are dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices, usually by a group with an "ax to grind" on the topic.[20][155] An article in Education Next Journal concluded that as a resource about controversial topics, Wikipedia is notoriously subject to manipulation and spin.[21]

In 2006, the Wikipedia Watch criticism website listed dozens of examples of plagiarism in the English Wikipedia.[156]"

There are more criticisms. Besides plagiarism, one of the worst I think is where they steal what you write as original material and claim it is under their copyright once it is accepted.

Well, several incredibly obvious examples of completely biased and even false content have been found on Conservapedia and referenced/linked-to in this thread. From the sounds of it, it didn't even take that much time searching or digging to find biased articles, and obvious presentations of opinion paraded as "fact."

Since Wikipedia is also "so terrible" (as you seem to be suggesting), why not just go and find a few examples of the same sorts of things on Wikipedia? Should be incredibly easy, according to the pervasiveness of dishonesty you seem to be describing, right? Although, even if you found such examples, I guarantee they would not be as blatant, or intellectually dishonest as any of the examples already posted from Conservapedia.

And with a user-base of the general public, is it any wonder that some unscrupulous people would go out and plagiarize works to try and get their name stamped on articles? Doesn't surprise me. And I would bet that Wikipedia tries to be fairly quick about correcting such issues. And why is it such a criticism that they have a large set of regulations? If anything that would make me feel a bit more confident in the content that actually makes it through the regulatory process.

 

[YmirGF]

As a self-respecting conservative it simply would not occur to me to visit the Conservapedia site for "information". I prefer my reality "straight up", with no ice, thanks.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, several incredibly obvious examples of completely biased and even false content have been found on Conservapedia and referenced/linked-to in this thread. From the sounds of it, it didn't even take that much time searching or digging to find biased articles, and obvious presentations of opinion paraded as "fact."

Since Wikipedia is also "so terrible" (as you seem to be suggesting), why not just go and find a few examples of the same sorts of things on Wikipedia? Shouldn't that be incredibly easy, according to the pervasiveness of dishonesty you seem to be describing? Although, even if you found such examples, I guarantee they would not be as blatant, or intellectually dishonest as any of the examples already posted from Conservapedia.

And with a user-base of the general public, is it any wonder that some unscrupulous people would go out and plagiarize works to try and get their name stamped on articles? Doesn't surprise me. And I would bet that Wikipedia tries to be fairly quick about correcting such issues. And why is it such a criticism that they have a large set of regulations? If anything that would make me feel a bit more confident in the content that actually makes it through the regulatory process.

This conservative rather likes Wikipedia. I mainly use it for cursory checks about topics and it is largely correct on most issues I have looked into. That said, I never take it as the final word in a given area and will resort to more traditional investigative research tools and practices but even there Wiki is often helpful as a springboard. But no, it wouldn't enter my mind to go to Conservapedia.... ever... I know bad propaganda when I see it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This conservative rather likes Wikipedia. I mainly use it for cursory checks about topics and it is largely correct on most issues I have looked into. That said, I never take it as the final word in a given area and will resort to more traditional investigative research tools and practices but even there Wiki is often helpful as a springboard. But no, it wouldn't enter my mind to go to Conservapedia.... ever... I know bad propaganda when I see it.

I tend to use it in the same fashion - to get an idea of what it is I am looking at. It is a very helpful resource toward that end - and I have perhaps only once or twice even gotten a hint of an article containing any sort of bias or "editorial-ish" content. Certainly nothing like Conservapedia. I honestly didn't even know Conservapedia existed prior to all this hubub... and I am certainly no better off for now having such knowledge.

 

[Skwim]

They obviously don't understand anything about relativity then. I'm not sure how gravity, light, space, time and motion behaves has anything to do with morality.

It doesn't of course, but Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia's founder and head honcho, is simply to dumb to realize it.

.

 

[Searching1981]

In a recent OP "The Downfall And Lies Of A Biased Liberal And Atheist Websource -- Wikipedia" created by james bond, he rails against Wikipedia and extols Conservapedia, an information source he contends "balance out the lies, errors and censorship of Wikipedia."

According to Wikipedia,

"Conservapedia /kənˈsɜːrvəˈpidiə/, "is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative point of view. The website was started in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias present in Wikipedia. It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content."
​

Okay, so just how reliable is Conservapedia?

I went there and looked around and found the following under the listing "Biblical scientific foreknowledge," which is explained as "Biblical scientific foreknowledge is how the Bible shows a comprehension of science far ahead of its time" where one finds Cosmology: Spherical Sun and Earth. Clicking on Spherical Sun and Earth one reads

"The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:

“He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - Isaiah 40:22
(CBP)
​

Interesting, because I've never seen the earth referred to as a sphere in the Bible before. Fortunately, there's a link attached to Isaiah 40:22 so as to correct my misunderstanding. Reading it we find;

Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
​

Hmmm, no sphere mentioned at all. But following the scripture we read under the column titled Proposed Conservative Translation

"He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under."
​

So that's it!! Cute isn't it how a self-serving proposal turns into a statement of fact:

"The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere" by just a click of conservapedia's mouse.





Looking into Conservapedia a bit further, under Atheism is a Religion we read:

"Atheism is a religion and this has implications in terms of the disciplines of religion, philosophy, Christian apologetics and law. In addition, although many atheists deny that atheism is a worldview, atheists commonly share a number of beliefs such as naturalism, belief in evolution and abiogenesis.

If the view that there is no God (or are no gods) is a religion, it is argued its expression is constitutionally protected in the United States. The government cannot force atheists to recant and adopt the opposite belief."
​

Call me crazy, but when including something in a category---the category being religion in this case--- one first defines or at least explains that category. But not conservapedia. Why bother explaining why atheism qualifies as a religion when it's much easier to just barrel ahead with . . .

In his BBC documentary The Trouble with Atheism the award-winning journalist Rod Liddle indicates:
"Some atheists have become rather dogmatic. Terribly certain in their conviction that there is no God and anyone who thinks there is is a deluded and dangerous fool. ,,,atheists are becoming as intransigent about their own views as the people they so despise.

Atheism is becoming a religion of its own. It already has its gurus and its revered sacred texts... It has its magnificent temples within which lie mysteries and unknowable truths.
​

Note the qualification of becoming a religion. Plus the silly mention of "revered sacred texts" and the ridiculous "It has its magnificent temples within which lie mysteries and unknowable truths." All without a single example. But how can there be? There are no such things. Conservapedia just makes up c*** as it goes along, knowing the undiscerning reader will swallow whatever it prints.

Then there's this truly inane and irrelevant remark:

"If atheism is not a religion, then the expression of atheistic ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses."​

which is also true of Homosexuality.

If homosexuality is not a religion, then the expression of homosexual ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses.​

and of totalitarianism, or fill in whatever system of government or belief you choose.

"If totalitarianism is not a religion, then the expression of totalitarian ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses."

"If lycanthropy is not a religion, then the expression of lycanthropic ideas is still covered by the First Amendment, but only by the free speech and free press clauses."
​

Conservapedia's arrogant stupidity continues, telling the reader that IF atheism is or is not a religion this or that will befall it. No kidding Sherlock.

So, while Conservapedia calls itself "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," in no way whatsoever does it match the veracity and trustworthiness of Wikipedia, or, for that matter, even

​

.

Look, I'm a Liberal but I appreciated the thread he wrote because I do not like Wikipedia. Would I go to Conservapedia or any other Wiki? No.

There is a plethora of incorrect information on Wikipedia and it is not accepted as a source in Academic settings and so long as Academia is true it will never be accepted in Academic Settings.

I personally try to edit Wikipedia to take off Ska from any relationship with Reggae but I cannot. So, as much as it irks me, the geeks of Ska now will tell future generations that they weren't the biggest geeks of the nineties that no one liked they were just as cool as Reggae which everyone liked.

My concern? One generations propaganda is the next generations sense of History.

 

[Skwim]

Look, I'm a Liberal but I appreciated the thread he wrote because I do not like Wikipedia.

So, do you appreciate his thread for the particular criticisms he makes, or for the fact that he shares your dislike of Wikipedia?

.

 

[Darkstorn]

I personally try to edit Wikipedia to take off Ska from any relationship with Reggae but I cannot.

That's because you'd be propagating factually incorrect information, that's based more on your subjective assessment of reality(i.e your opinion) than any rational argument. Not even Encyclopedia Britannica supports your stance. For example:

Ska is a Jamaican genre, and serves as a precursor to reggae together with rocksteady. You make the unsubstantiated claim that it's "gentrified white Swing Geek music." And seem to imply that it's also newer than reggae...

Based on EB, and WP for that matter, i think your claims are irrational and not substantiated by any available sources. I would like to see what source you used to be base your assessment on. I am actually curious.

No matter how hard i tried to google it, your understanding of the relationship between reggae and ska seems to be unique to yourself.

 

[Searching1981]

That's because you'd be propagating factually incorrect information, that's based more on your subjective assessment of reality(i.e your opinion) than any rational argument. Not even Encyclopedia Britannica supports your stance. For example:

Ska is a Jamaican genre, and serves as a precursor to reggae together with rocksteady. You make the unsubstantiated claim that it's "gentrified white Swing Geek music." And seem to imply that it's also newer than reggae...

Based on EB, and WP for that matter, i think your claims are irrational and not substantiated by any available sources. I would like to see what source you used to be base your assessment on. I am actually curious.

No matter how hard i tried to google it, your understanding of the relationship between reggae and ska seems to be unique to yourself.

Yes, and Jamaica. I know geekism is a curse, but if you could talk to Reggae musicians and ask them, "do they know what Ska is," they would say, "no." Now the internet is filled with geek culture trying to pretend to be cool but if you lived in the nineties when Ska emerged, not before then, you would see these were all the worst geeks of society. You didn't live in that generation when we were all begging for Ska to get off the radio. You haven't been around the Whites who play it and love it and think they are cool for it. You don't listen to it and know, "the black race is the coolest race on the planet, surely they did not come up with this homosexuality only played and appreciated by whites."

Just because I know and lived through history and can't change the propaganda out there it doesn't mean I don't know the truth. Don't believe me, I don't care. This is where I am Conservative: I won't you and your internet away from my family because I want my kid to be cool in the spirit of Reggae and Rastaffari.

 

[Darkstorn]

but if you could talk to Reggae musicians and ask them, "do they know what Ska is," they would say, "no."

That's a lie unless you can somehow support it. The very first reggae musicians very primarily ska artists. Both WP and EB support my claim in this.

Now the internet is filled with geek culture trying to pretend to be cool but if you lived in the nineties when Ska emerged, not before then, you would see these were all the worst geeks of society.

Are you serious now? Or is there such a thing as liberal alt-facts now? Your assessment seems to be completely out of whack with known reality. Are you actually claiming that ska emerged in the nineties?

You didn't live in that generation when we were all begging for Ska to get off the radio.

Which generation is that? I'm pretty sure that you aren't any older than me, judging from your listed age.

You haven't been around the Whites who play it and love it and think they are cool for it.

Yes i have. And with such people of every possible genre you could imagine. I'm a musician.

You don't listen to it and know, "the black race is the coolest race on the planet, surely they did not come up with this homosexuality only played and appreciated by whites."

Uh-huh?

Just because I know and lived through history and can't change the propaganda out there it doesn't mean I don't know the truth.

You definitely do not know the truth. You make actual claims that ska is a 90's thing.

Don't believe me, I don't care. This is where I am Conservative: I won't you and your internet away from my family because I want my kid to be cool in the spirit of Reggae and Rastaffari.

So, to be cool is to change facts to suit your worldview?

When you said you were liberal before, i didn't believe you.

 

[Searching1981]

Here is a video of top 10 Ska. Pay close attention, it will cut through the gay white propaganda.

Let me do an analysis as a musician and Historian of music and lover of the all minorities global:

10 Sublime: White
09: The Beat: White (Black studio musicians, we have to make money some how. I'm Hispanic but I feel for all my brothers in sisters in struggle and Faith)
08: Madness: White (they Get respect for being English, which is a culture not white)
07. Mighty Bostons: White (Gay with straight studio musicians of color)
06. The Whalers (Are Reggae and the person says they are six for ska, nothing to do with ska)
05: Toots (Are Reggae nothing to do with Ska)
04. Operation Ivy: White
03: The Toasters: White with Black Studio Musicians.
02: The Specials: WHITE but respect for being English.
01: The Skatilites: Jazz, Afro-Cuban, Great Music, Not White Not Ska. High art and genius which the white community continues to desecrate today.

In conclusion: If you appropriate others cultures you cannot appropriate their true history.

Let me write a song and poem:

The White Man come with glasses
Analyze my work
Tells me that is passes
The White Man's communal work
As much as I smirk
He takes my music away
And at the end of the day
Appropriates the true beauty of
My cultural works

But they cannot erase My History
for the Revenant is Here
He'll live through all adversary
And make the truth clear!

I can go on, I'm poet, musician and Revenant. If you want the song to continue just ask.

 

[Darkstorn]

Um... Ok?

So your issue is white people making music?

/E: I meant to say "white people in general."

 

[Searching1981]

Um... Ok?

So your issue is white people making music?

/E: I meant to say "white people in general."

Yes and No. White people can make THEIR music but stay away from ours. And when your music sucks, don't legitimize it by saying it came from us.

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes and No. White people can make THEIR music but stay away from ours.

As long as you keep using western musical instruments, which use western standard tuning, which are based on western music theory, that statement is merely one speaking from hate, not from reason or logic.

There's no "our" or "your" music. There's only music. As long as you keep putting an agenda into there, you are GRAVELY MISSING THE POINT. Music is not a vessel for hate you simple hypocrite.

Music is a community effort. You wouldn't have rock without both black and white contributions, you wouldn't have reggae without both black and white contributions. You don't know anything about music.

You are also mistaking trends and people's opinions regarding music as the actual music in your arguments. That is just... Nuts.

/E: I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as race. There are only individuals with varying skin color. INDIVIDUALS. And you, as an individual, are your actions. I would never trust a person like you to know a thing about anything.

And when your music sucks, don't legitimize it by saying it came from us

You are making the claim that ska is white because you think it sucks. Are you not seeing your own hypocrisy? Now we all know what kind of a person you are.

 

[Searching1981]

As long as you keep using western musical instruments, which use western standard tuning, which are based on western music theory, that statement is merely one speaking from hate, not from reason or logic.

There's no "our" or "your" music. There's only music. As long as you keep putting an agenda into there, you are GRAVELY MISSING THE POINT. Music is not a vessel for hate you simple hypocrite.

Music is a community effort. You wouldn't have rock without both black and white contributions, you wouldn't have reggae without both black and white contributions. You don't know anything about music.

You are also mistaking trends and people's opinions regarding music as the actual music in your arguments. That is just... Nuts.

/E: I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as race. There are only individuals with varying skin color. INDIVIDUALS. And you, as an individual, are your actions. I would never trust a person like you to know a thing about anything.

Hmmm....self-delusion is difficult but I ask you to think and resolve these two? You are showing your true colors and hiding behind sanctimony, speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Because you are not a musician or poet, you do not know there is no theory a musician cares about, the music comes from the soul and the human body is the vessel and the instrument is just the medium. (it can be done on any medium) Music Theory is just a bunch of geeks (white geeks) trying to make sense out of something that is magical, you want theory stick to Classical...I will be in the Tavern.

And the truth is, White Men never created an instrument...Europeans with culture in places far away from this place did but you still live under the delusion that you are European, no you are White. White is the absence of culture and the appropriation of others cultures it is not a culture.

I tell you I do not care if you are racist, why because I am towards a certain kind of White and I say that openly and do not care. So, be racist. I hope I turned you into an even bigger racist. Remember I am Hispanic so leave everyone alone but spread it there. I'm not here to unite but to divide.

 

[Darkstorn]

Hmmm....self-delusion is difficult but I ask you to think and resolve these two? You are showing your true colors and hiding behind sanctimony, speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

You highlighted a part in my post which you haven't been able to refute.

Because you are not a musician or poet, you do not know there is no theory a musician cares about, the music comes from the soul and the human body is the vessel and the instrument is just the medium. (it can be done on any medium) Music Theory is just a bunch of geeks (white geeks) trying to make sense out of something that is magical, you want theory stick to Classical...I will be in the Tavern.

You missed the point entirely. I was trying to make the point that as long as you use a guitar, a keyboard, a bass, or drums, then you owe everything to western music theory: Which in turn owes everything to preceding forms, even middle-eastern.

Nothing is as simple as white vs black. It's at best grey vs grey. Or blue vs orange.

Everything owes everything to everything else. You are a fool for dividing music into racial lines and agendas.

For the record: Almost ALL *MODERN* GENRES are based on African music. Even electronic music owes most of its existence to Jamaican music. Yet they use western instruments, and tunings. There never was white music, or black music, or green music. There was always just music.

And the truth is, White Men never created an instrument...Europeans with culture in places far away from this place did but you still live under the delusion that you are European, no you are White. White is the absence of culture and the appropriation of others cultures it is not a culture.

"Far away from this place?" What exactly do you mean? Are you under the impression that this forum is America? It's not. I'm European. My mother is a black African, and my father is a white European. Are there different grades of "white" now?

I tell you I do not care if you are racist, why because I am towards a certain kind of White and I say that openly and do not care. So, be racist. I hope I turned you into an even bigger racist. Remember I am Hispanic so leave everyone alone but spread it there. I'm not here to unite but to divide.

I just told you i don't believe in race. I believe in individuals, and their actions. You as an individual, aren't what i'd consider a constructive element of society. You're one of those trying to mold and destroy it to fit your image.

Just to lighten up the mood, here's a (very) short piece of non-hate-filled music i made some time ago, accompanied by animation i made:

 

[Sapiens]

Because you are not a musician or poet, you do not know there is no theory a musician cares about, the music comes from the soul and the human body is the vessel and the instrument is just the medium. (it can be done on any medium) Music Theory is just a bunch of geeks (white geeks) trying to make sense out of something that is magical, you want theory stick to Classical...I will be in the Tavern.

And the truth is, White Men never created an instrument...Europeans with culture in places far away from this place did but you still live under the delusion that you are European, no you are White. White is the absence of culture and the appropriation of others cultures it is not a culture.

I tell you I do not care if you are racist, why because I am towards a certain kind of White and I say that openly and do not care. So, be racist. I hope I turned you into an even bigger racist. Remember I am Hispanic so leave everyone alone but spread it there. I'm not here to unite but to divide.

If that were so the I would not be able to so describe a piece as 12-bar blues in E. Theory works for classical, theory works for blues, theory works for Jazz, theory works even for country.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes and No. White people can make THEIR music but stay away from ours. And when your music sucks, don't legitimize it by saying it came from us.

*starts to beat box*

You cannot stop me!

*continues to beat box*

 

[Regiomontanus]

I have always found it interesting how so many people attach the word 'conservative' to religion/the religious. I mean, Jesus was a socialist and just about every liberal I have ever met is religious to one degree or another.