Misplaced Pages

Conservapedia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:38, 6 April 2010 view sourceTmtoulouse (talk | contribs)2,170 edits Would love to know how the LA times is a blog?← Previous edit Revision as of 06:05, 6 April 2010 view source Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,196 edits rv – even if this is the LA Times, it won't work as a BLP source without a ref to where that "admission" was actually made.Next edit →
Line 75: Line 75:


===RationalWiki=== ===RationalWiki===
In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of ], attempted to edit the article on ] to include evidence against Conservapedia's statement naming abortion as a major cause of the disease, but found his medical credentials being questioned by Schlafly and other Conservapedia administrators, all of whom ended the debate by deleting Lipson's edits and blocking Lipson's account.<ref name="LA Times">{{cite news|last=Simon|first=Stephanie|title=A conservative's answer to Misplaced Pages|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19|accessdate=2007-11-02|date=2007-06-22|work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> Several editors, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki, to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "] movement", and "crank ideas," as well as conduct "explorations of ] and ]."<ref>{{Cite web|title = About|publisher = RationalWiki|date = 13 March 2010|url = http://rationalwiki.com/Template:RationalWiki_MainPage/About|accessdate = 28 March 2010}}</ref> According to an article published in the '']'' in 2007, "From there, monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism."<ref name="LA Times"/> In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of ], attempted to edit the article on ] to include evidence against Conservapedia's statement naming abortion as a major cause of the disease, but found his medical credentials being questioned by Schlafly and other Conservapedia administrators, all of whom ended the debate by deleting Lipson's edits and blocking Lipson's account.<ref name="LA Times">{{cite news|last=Simon|first=Stephanie|title=A conservative's answer to Misplaced Pages|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19|accessdate=2007-11-02|date=2007-06-22|work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> Several editors, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki, to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "] movement", and "crank ideas," as well as conduct "explorations of ] and ]."<ref>{{Cite web|title = About|publisher = RationalWiki|date = 13 March 2010|url = http://rationalwiki.com/Template:RationalWiki_MainPage/About|accessdate = 28 March 2010}}</ref>


===Lenski dialogue=== ===Lenski dialogue===

Revision as of 06:05, 6 April 2010

Conservapedia
Conservapedia logo
Screenshot File:Conservapedia Main Page.PNGConservapedia's Main Page
Type of siteInternet encyclopedia project
Available inEnglish
OwnerAndrew Schlafly
Created byVoluntary collaborators
URLwww.conservapedia.com
CommercialNo
RegistrationOptional (required to edit pages)

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an American Christian conservative point of view. It was started in 2006 by lawyer and home school teacher Andy Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. He stated that he founded the project because he felt that Misplaced Pages had a liberal bias.

Conservapedia is one of many conservative and Christian-themed Web sites such as Tangle.com (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch which have adopted the format of popular mainstream sites in order to provide a right-wing or fundamentalist Christian alternative. Both inside and outside the United States, Conservapedia has been accused of bias and inaccuracies.

History and overview

Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly

Conservapedia was created in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard-educated attorney with a practice that focuses on medical, social and economic issues and a homeschool teacher. 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. Although he was "an early Misplaced Pages enthusiast", as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly became concerned about bias after Misplaced Pages editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings. Schlafly expressed hope that Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived in Misplaced Pages.

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

Running on MediaWiki software, the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest articles dating from November 22. 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. Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include links to news articles and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism. The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion, history, and politics. Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Misplaced Pages" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Misplaced Pages pages. It was, at one point, the most-viewed page on the site.

Editorial viewpoints and policies

To eliminate the supposed bias that exists on Misplaced Pages, many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Misplaced Pages. For example, only registered users can make changes to Conservapedia articles and general editing can only be done during the day time. Articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Misplaced Pages as well as criticism of its alleged liberal ideology. When he launched the online encyclopedia project, Schlafly asserted the need for an alternative to Misplaced Pages due to editorial philosophy conflicts. The site's "Conservapedia Commandments" differ from Misplaced Pages's editorial policies, which include following a neutral point of view and avoiding original research. In response to Misplaced Pages'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", and "Misplaced Pages 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."

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages is no longer a viable approach." On March 7, 2007 Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Misplaced Pages administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that Misplaced Pages 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. Redmond argued that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policies regarding citation of sources and cooperation with other contributors as basis for allowing any factual information to be added.

Religion and science

Many Conservapedia articles support the young earth creationist point of view. Its article on evolution presents evolution as a scientific theory that lacks support and conflicts with evidence in the fossil record that creationists perceive to support creationism. The entry also suggests that sometimes the Bible has been more scientifically correct than the scientific community. Schlafly had defended the statement as presenting an alternative to evolution. A Los Angeles Times journalist voiced concern that children stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia's alleged science is accurate. An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention. Schlafly has asserted that the page was intended as a parody of environmentalism. As of March 4, 2007, the entry has been deleted.

Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb," and that Einstein was only a minor contributor to the theory of relativity. Relativity in particular is targeted as an alleged liberal ideology, and Schlafly attempts to disprove the theory with alleged counterexamples. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, is accepted by Conservapedia, but inaccuracies are present (for example, it claims that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle causes Brownian motion, which is not the case).

Conservapedia asserts, based on selective evidence, that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first trimester abortion.

In an analysis in early 2007 science writer Carl Zimmer found evidence that much of what appeared to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory could be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile. On March 19, 2007, the British free newspaper Metro ran the article "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes", articulating the dismissal of Conservapedia by the Royal Society, saying "People need to be very careful about where they look for scientific information."

The English Misplaced Pages policy allowing both Common Era and Anno Domini notation has been interpreted as anti-Christian bias. In July 2008, American Prospect associate editor Ezra Klein derided the Conservapedia article on atheism in his weekly column: "As Daniel DeGroot notes, you've got to wonder which 'unreasonable' explanations they rejected when formulating that entry."

Political ideology

Many Conservapedia articles criticize values that its editors associate with liberal ideology. Schlafly said in an interview with National Public Radio that Misplaced Pages's article on the history of the Democratic Party is an "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson" and that it is "specious and worth criticizing". He also has claimed that Misplaced Pages is "six times more liberal than the American public", a claim that has been labeled "sensational" by Andrew Chung of the Canadian newspaper the Toronto Star.

John Cotey of the St. Petersburg Times observed that the Conservapedia article about the Democratic Party contained a criticism about the party's alleged support for same-sex marriage, and associated the party with the "homosexual agenda". The Conservapedia entries on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama are critical of their respective subjects. During the 2008 presidential campaign, its entry on Obama asserted that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action". Some Conservapedia editors urged that it be changed or deleted, but Schlafly responded by asserting that the Harvard Law Review, the Harvard University legal journal for which Obama was once an editor and president, uses racial quotas and stated: "The statement about affirmative action is accurate and will remain in the entry." In addition, Hugh Muir of the British newspaper The Guardian mockingly referred to Conservapedia's assertion that Obama has links to radical Islam as "dynamite" and an excellent resource for "US rightwingers." In contrast, the articles about conservative politicians, such as Republican former US president Ronald Reagan and former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher have been observed as praising their respective subjects. Mark Sabbatini of the Juneau Empire considered the Conservapedia entry on Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate for the 2008 US presidential election a "kinder, gentler" and "far shorter and less controversial" reference for one wishing to learn about Palin in contrast with the corresponding Misplaced Pages entry, which Sabbatini found to be plagued by disputes over inclusion of potentially controversial details about her life.

Licensing of content

Conservapedia allows users to "use any of the content on this site with or without attribution." The copyright policy also states "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees." Misplaced Pages co-founder Jimmy Wales has raised concerns about the fact that the project is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a similar copyleft license, stating that "People who contribute are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results."

Other editorial policies

Editing is disabled for most users when it is nighttime in the U.S. Additionally, the site has stated that it prohibits unregistered users from editing entries due to concerns over vandalism and defamation. While Misplaced Pages allows both American English and British English to be used in its articles, Conservapedia states on its "Manual of Style" page that "American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome". It prefers that articles about the United Kingdom use British English, while articles about the United States use American English, to resolve editorial disputes. Initially, Schlafly and other Conservapedia editors considered Misplaced Pages's policy allowing British English spelling to be anti-American bias. The "Conservapedia Commandments" also require edits to be "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" and that users make most edits on their site quality edits to articles; accounts that engage in what it considers "nproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits" may be blocked. The commandments also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edits that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam. Conservapedia policies encourage the users to choose usernames "based on real name or initials", and users with "frivolous" user names are in danger of being banned; one of criticisms hurled towards Misplaced Pages is "silly administrator names", which is stated to reflect Misplaced Pages's "substantial anti-intellectual element."

Reception

The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for numerous factual inaccuracies and factual relativism. Wired magazine noted that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers." Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries. Conservapedia has been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective, and Theopedia, a wiki covering the Bible. Fox News obliquely compared it with other new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones, such as MyChurch, a Christian version of social networking site MySpace, and GodTube, a Christian version of video site YouTube. The Guardian of the United Kingdom has referred to the Conservapedia's politics as "right-wing".

Thomas Eugene Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about religion, specifically Christianity, than conservatism and that it "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Misplaced Pages" than Misplaced Pages itself. Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians". Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective." APC magazine perceives this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias. Conservative and Christian commentator Rod Dreher has been highly critical of the website's "Conservative Bible Project", a planned retranslation of the Bible which Dreher attributes to "insane hubris" on the part of "right-wing ideologues".

The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting relativism with the implicit idea that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts". Matthew Sheffield, columnist for The Washington Times and contributor to the conservative Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, argued that conservatives concerned about bias should contribute more often to Misplaced Pages rather than use Conservapedia as an alternative since he felt that alternative websites like Conservapedia are often "incomplete". Author Damien Thompson says Conservapedia "is to dress up nonsense as science".

Allegations of homophobia have also been raised against Conservapedia. Bryan Ochalla, writing for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) magazine The Advocate, referred to the project as "Misplaced Pages for the bigoted". On the satirical news program The Daily Show, comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality.

Opinions criticizing the site rapidly spread throughout the blogosphere around early 2007. Schlafly appeared on radio programs Today on BBC Radio 4 and All Things Considered on NPR to discuss the site around that time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC program The Hour for the same purpose.

Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about Conservapedia. Matt Barber, policy director for the conservative Christian political action group Concerned Women for America, praised Conservapedia as a more family-friendly and accurate alternative to Misplaced Pages.

Jimmy Wales

Misplaced Pages's co-creator Jimmy Wales said about Conservapedia that "free culture knows no bounds" and "the reuse of our work to build variants directly in line with our mission." Wales denied Schlafly's claims of liberal bias in Misplaced Pages.

RationalWiki

In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, attempted to edit the article on breast cancer to include evidence against Conservapedia's statement naming abortion as a major cause of the disease, but found his medical credentials being questioned by Schlafly and other Conservapedia administrators, all of whom ended the debate by deleting Lipson's edits and blocking Lipson's account. Several editors, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki, to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "anti-science movement", and "crank ideas," as well as conduct "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism."

Lenski dialogue

On June 9, 2008, New Scientist published an article describing Richard Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment, which reported that the bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize citrate. Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Lenski explained that the relevant data was in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data. Lenski replied again that the relevant data was already in the paper, that the "raw data" were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit. The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia page called "Lenski dialog," was widely reported on news-aggregating sites and web logs. Carl Zimmer wrote that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read closely," and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it. During and after the Lenski dialogue on Conservapedia, several users on the site were blocked for "insubordination" for expressing disagreement with Schlafly's stance on the issue.

Conservative Bible Project

Conservapedia also hosts the Conservative Bible Project. This is a project aiming to rewrite the English translation of the Bible in an effort to remove terms described as "liberal bias" from the Bible. The project intends to remove sections of the Bible which are judged to be later liberal additions. These include the story of the adulteress in the Gospel of John in which Jesus declares "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." The project also intends to remove Jesus's prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing," since it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and since, according to Schlafly, "the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible." The adulteress story and the "forgive them" line are missing from many early manuscripts, and many modern textual scholars consider that they are not authentic parts of the gospels, though possibly historically valid.

The Bible project has met with extensive criticism. Rod Dreher, a conservative editor and columnist, described the project as "insane hubris" and "crazy"; he further described the project as "It's like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'." Ed Morrissey, another conservative Christian writer, wrote that bending the word of God to one's own ideology makes God subservient to an ideology, rather than the other way around. Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily, stated that "I've seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by 'conservatives' in my day, but this one takes the cake" and "There's certainly nothing 'conservative' about rewriting the Bible".

On October 7, 2009, Stephen Colbert called for his viewers to incorporate him into the Conservapedia Bible as a Biblical figure and viewers responded by editing the Conservapedia Bible to include his name. This was followed by an interview between Colbert and Schlafly on December 8, 2009.

See also

References

  1. Conservapedia general disclaimer
  2. "Conservapedia.com". Alexa. 2009-09-19. Retrieved 2010-03-13.
  3. ^ "Conservapedia: christlich-konservative Alternative zu Misplaced Pages". Heise Online. 2007-03-02. Template:De icon
  4. ^ Coyle, Jake (2007-05-08). "Popular Web Sites Breed Political Copies". San Francisco Chronicle. Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-04-26.
  5. "Andy Schlafly". Eagle Forum University. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
  6. ^ Siegel, Robert (2007-03-13). "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  7. ^ "GodTube Provides Christian Web-Video Alternative". Fox News. AP. 2007-11-02. Retrieved 2008-08-02.
  8. Coyle, Jake (2007-05-10). "Conservapedia, QubeTV mimic popular sites with spin to right". Retrieved 2010-03-26.
  9. Thomson, Iain (2007-04-30). "Christians take on YouTube with GodTube". Retrieved 2010-03-26.
  10. ^ Chung, Andrew (2007-03-11). "A U.S. conservative wants to set Misplaced Pages right". The Star.com.
  11. ^ the notion "that there's always a second, equally valid interpretation of the facts." Clarke, Conor. (2007). "A fact of one's own". The Guardian, March 1.
  12. ^ "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes". Metro. Associated Newspapers. 2007-03-19. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
  13. ^ Maloney, Evan (2007-05-30). "Conservapedia: as accurate as a catatonic drunkard's line of urine". Splat!. News.com.au. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
  14. "Eagle Forum University". Eagle Forum. Retrieved 2009-01-01.
  15. ^ Simon, Stephanie (2007-06-22). "A conservative's answer to Misplaced Pages". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  16. Zeller, Shawn (2007-03-05). "Conservapedia: See Under "Right"". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
  17. ^ Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-01). "Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Misplaced Pages". The Guardian.
  18. "American History Lecture One". Conservapedia. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  19. ^ "American History 101". Eagle Forum University. 2007-04-30. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  20. "Conservapedia statistics". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2009-10-31.
  21. Decker, Edwin (2007-07-25). "Sickopedia". San Diego CityBeat. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
  22. Wehrwein, Zach (Autumn 2007). "My Trip Through La La Land". Gordian Knot. University of Chicago. Retrieved 2008-08-07.
  23. Holsinger, Kevin (2008-05-09). "The Case Against Mental Inbreeding: Debate Topics on Conservapedia". Daily Kos. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
  24. ^ Turner, Adam (2007-03-05). "Conservapedia aims to set Misplaced Pages right". IT Wire. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
  25. "wiki". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 1. London: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 2007. Retrieved 2008-04-10.
  26. ^ "Examples of Bias in Misplaced Pages". Conservapedia. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-03-17.. Concerns over anonymous editors using IP addresses include the charge that Misplaced Pages's policy allowing IP edits results "in frequent defamation" (item 25) and "rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly liberal" (item 29). Thus, it is stated that "redible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses."
  27. ^ "Conservapedia Commandments". Conservapedia. 2008-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  28. "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view". Misplaced Pages. 2007-01-21. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  29. "Misplaced Pages:Attribution". Misplaced Pages. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  30. "Conservapedia:Guidelines". Conservapedia. 2008-05-27. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  31. ^ Calore, Michael (February 28, 2007) What Would Jesus Wiki? Wired Magazine
  32. ^ "Today programme" (RealPlayer). BBC Radio 4. March 7, 2007. Retrieved 2007-04-09.
  33. By default, Conservapedia titled its article on evolution as "theory of evolution", which was redirected from the title "evolution". On December 28, 2008, an administrator moved the page to title "Evolution". The same still applies to their article about sexual orientation
  34. Brown, Barrett (April 23), "Conservapedia: Bastion of the Reality-Denying Right", Vanity Fair {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  35. ^ Sbarski, Peter (2007-03-10). "Misplaced Pages vs Conservapedia". APC. Retrieved 2008-06-28.
  36. Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" Retrieved March 4, 2007
  37. "Relativity". Conservapedia. 2007-02-22. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  38. ^ Thomson, Iain (2007) "Conservapedia takes on Misplaced Pages 'bias'" Information World Review, February 28
  39. "Counterexamples to Relativity". Conservapedia. 2010-01-08. Retrieved 2010-02-02.
  40. "Quantum mechanics". Retrieved March 7, 2010.
  41. "WHO — Induced abortion does not increase breast cancer risk". Retrieved 2008-08-29.
  42. Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G (2004). "Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries". Lancet. 363 (9414): 1007–16. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15835-2. PMID 15051280. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  43. Zimmer, Carl (2007-02-21). "Sources, Sources". The Loom. Scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  44. Lewis, Shelley (2007) "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Misplaced Pages's War on Christians, Patriots" Huffington Post, February 23
  45. ^ Zhang, Linda (2007-03-07). "Conservapedia Challenges 'Anti-Christian' Wiki". The Christian Post. Retrieved 2008-06-28.
  46. Klein, Ezra (2008-07-28). "God's Bathroom Floor". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2008-07-28.
  47. Cotey, John (2007-03-16). "Conservative Web site counters the 'bias' of Misplaced Pages". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-07-03.
  48. Schlafly, Andrew (February 17, 2008). ""Talk:Barack Obama"". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-03-27.
  49. Muir, Hugh (2007-10-03). "Guardian Diary". Retrieved 2008-11-24.
  50. Read, Brock (March 2, 2007). "A Misplaced Pages for the Right Wing". Chronicle of Higher Education. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)
  51. Sabbatini, Mark (2008-09-02). "Misplaced Pages war emerges over details about Palin". The Juneau Empire. Retrieved 2008-09-02.
  52. "Conservapedia Copyright". Conservapedia. 2007-04-06. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  53. "Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany". Conservapedia. 2007-08-05. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  54. "National varieties of English". Manual of Style. Misplaced Pages. 2008-04-11. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  55. "Spelling". Manual of Style. Conservapedia. 2008-04-10. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  56. "Log in / create account". 2010-03-18.
  57. Rightwing website challenges 'liberal bias' of Misplaced Pages, The Guardian, 1 March 2007
  58. Millham, Matt (2008-06-15). "Faith takes strange forms on the Web". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 2008-06-25.
  59. Gray, Tim (2007-04-03). "Conservapedia: Far Righter Than Misplaced Pages". ecommercetimes.com. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  60. Dreher, Rod (2009-10-01). "Conservatizing the Bible". Beliefnet. Retrieved 2009-10-05.
  61. Sheffield, Matthew (August 22, 2008). "Conservatives miss Misplaced Pages's threat". The Washington Times. Retrieved April 1, 2010.
  62. Thompson, Damian (2008). Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and Fake History. Atlantic Books. ISBN 1843546752.
  63. Caleca, Ben (2008-05-17). "Conservapedia: Taking a Stand for Oppressed WASPs everywhere". The Michigan Daily. Retrieved 2008-05-19.
  64. Bryan Ochalla, "Misplaced Pages for the bigoted." The Advocate, March 25, 2008, p. 12.
  65. "Episode 12087". The Daily Show. 2007-06-27. Comedy Central. Black highlighted Conservapedia's introductory sentence "homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle". In response, he said: "On Conservapedia, 'gay' sounds way more interesting!"
  66. Andrew Schlafly (2008-05-21). Conservapedia on The Hour. YouTube.
  67. Barber, Matt (2008-05-23). "Conservapedia: The Conservative Alternative". Concerned Women for America. Retrieved 2008-09-13.
  68. Biever, Celeste (2007-02-26). "A conservative rival for Misplaced Pages?". New Scientist.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  69. "About". RationalWiki. 13 March 2010. Retrieved 28 March 2010.
  70. Holmes, Bob (2008-06-09). "Bacteria makes major evolutionary shift in the lab". New Scientist. Retrieved 2008-06-27. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  71. Marshall, Michael (2008-06-25). "Creationist critics get their comeuppance". newscientist. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  72. "Conservapedia: Lenski Dialog". Conservapedia. 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  73. Zimmer, Carl (2008-06-24). "Loom: =Of bacteria and throw pillows". scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  74. Myers, PZ (2008-06-24). "Lenski gives conservapedia a lesson". scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
  75. Conservapedia has a little hangup over evolution, Charles Arthur, July 1, 2008, The Guardian Technology blog
  76. ^ Gibson, David (7 October 2009). "A Neocon Bible: What Would Jesus Say?". Politics Daily. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  77. "NETBible: John 7". Bible.org. Retrieved 2009-10-17. See note 139 on that page. See also the New International Version of John 7:53–8:11.
  78. "NETBible: Luke 23". Bible.org. Retrieved 2009-10-17. See note 81 on that page.
  79. Franzen, Carl (7 October 2009). "The Bible: Conservative Edition". The Atlantic Wire. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  80. McGrath, James F. (7 December 2009). "Translating the Bible is no joke. But what's in a political 'translation'?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2009-12-09.
  81. Dreher, Rod (1 October 2009). "Conservatizing the Bible". Crunchy Con. Beliefnet. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  82. "Conservapedia.com's Conservative Bible Project aims to deliberalize the bible". New York Daily News. 6 October 2009. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  83. "Do conservatives need their own Bible translation?". Hot Air. 6 October 2009. Retrieved 7 October 2009.
  84. "Now 'conservatives' are twisting Scripture". WorldNetDaily. 22 October 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2009.
  85. "The Colbert Report (October 7, 2009 episode)". The Colbert Report. 2009-10-07. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)
  86. Collis, Clark (8 October 2009). "Stephen Colbert wants you to put him in the Bible". Entertainment Weekly (PopWatch). Retrieved 15 October 2009.
  87. http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091018/NEWS06/910180341/New+Conservative+Bible+will+eliminate++liberal++text
  88. "The Colbert Report (December 8, 2009 episode)". The Colbert Report. 2009-12-08. {{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter |serieslink= ignored (|series-link= suggested) (help)

External links

Categories: