Conservapedia is a lulzfest

[Chambered Word]

Do any other comrades read this as a source of entertainment? I'm reading the article on communism right now and laughing my socks off!

See 'liberal myths'. That's a good article to start with. :laugh:

[Rusty Shackleford]

they categorize Al-queda with RAF, Weathermen Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army and so on in their terrorism page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Terrorism) :confused:

[Nolan]

Read the articles on evolution and creationism!!

[The Ungovernable Farce]

One of their top editors recently came out as a parodist: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Parthian_shot/RodWeathers
Oh, and the guy who runs it is starting a project to rewrite the Bible to make it more insanely right-wing. Not making this up (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/the_conservative_bible_project.php).

[ComradeMan]

Never heard of that before? What is it exactly? Uncyclopaedia but that people believe it?:D

[The Ungovernable Farce]

It's wikipedia for people who think that reality is a socialist conspiracy.

[Muzk]

And liberals are left wing.


btw, look at this
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anarchism
and this
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anarchy

[Brady]

Jaw-dropping stuff.

"Cuba's high level of freedom and prosperity was destroyed by dictator Fidel Castro"

"Guevara failed spectacularly at everything he attempted-except the mass murder of defenseless men and boys"

"Leftists have hated Pinochet ever since for defeating them"

:laugh:

[Chambered Word]

they categorize Al-queda with RAF, Weathermen Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army and so on in their terrorism page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Terrorism) :confused:

Yeah I noticed that al-Qaida is listed as a 'left-wing terrorist organization'. :laugh:


"Cuba's high level of freedom and prosperity was destroyed by dictator Fidel Castro"

"Guevara failed spectacularly at everything he attempted-except the mass murder of defenseless men and boys"

"Leftists have hated Pinochet ever since for defeating them" Oh god, I lol'd irl! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

EDIT: Oh shit, I'm reading the article on the Conservative Bible Project!


Third Example - Socialism Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.
For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.


Because incase you guys didn't know already, Marx invented the word 'comrade'. :D


I sometimes wonder how people get THIS stupid...

[ComradeMan]

I've had time to have a look at it now and it's a complete load of rubbish. Whereas wikipedia has strong policies on avoiding emotive and "point-of-view" language Conservopedia is just riddled with it.

Who writes this stuff?

What worries me is that there are people out there who will believe this rubbish. Disinformation is a powerful source of propaganda in itself.

Now, no offence meant to all the Americans here and who do not fall into this category but I notice that many Americans in general seem to have very little world-knowledge and some odd ideas about things. They also seem to be very self-assured of their facts and stuff like Conservopedia (probably read by this group) just add more fuel to the fire of ignorance. The reason I am saying Americans is that I imagine Conservopedia is produced by and aimed at Republican voting Middle-America.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I've had time to have a look at it now and it's a complete load of rubbish. Whereas wikipedia has strong policies on avoiding emotive and "point-of-view" language Conservopedia is just riddled with it.

Who writes this stuff?

What worries me is that there are people out there who will believe this rubbish. Disinformation is a powerful source of propaganda in itself.

Now, no offence meant to all the Americans here and who do not fall into this category but I notice that many Americans in general seem to have very little world-knowledge and some odd ideas about things. They also seem to be very self-assured of their facts and stuff like Conservopedia (probably read by this group) just add more fuel to the fire of ignorance. The reason I am saying Americans is that I imagine Conservopedia is produced by and aimed at Republican voting Middle-America.

Many americans do have odd ideas about things, true. i would not doubt the same for other places though either. as for conservopedia, i would like to think it was a joke but its not. the people who do read it are probably already deeply involved with conservatism and do have some sort of grasp on politics. im guessing those who made it were just a bunch of conservatives trying to wage an online crusade.

i feel assured that any intelligent person could see the bias in the majority of their articles. the name alone raises a flag.

[RHIZOMES]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Contras

The Contras were a collection of freedom fighters and political activists opposed to communism in Nicaragua (http://www.conservapedia.com/Nicaragua) in the 1980s. They were dubbed "counter-revolutionaries" by the leftist Sandinista (http://www.conservapedia.com/Sandinista) government of Nicaragua (http://www.conservapedia.com/Nicaragua) in the 1980s. The United States (http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_of_America) under Presidents Jimmy Carter (http://www.conservapedia.com/Jimmy_Carter) [1] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Contras#cite_note-0) and Ronald Reagan (http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan) covertly supported the Contras.
Revelations of this covert funding fueled the Iran-Contra affair (http://www.conservapedia.com/Iran-Contra_Affair). Oliver North (http://www.conservapedia.com/Oliver_North), who was intimately involved with the funding, is currently a senior correspondent at the Fox News Channel (http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_News_Channel). No one was ever convicted of violating any law by finding the Contras. Convictions for other aspects of the covert operation were overturned on appeal.
Communist propaganda portrayed them as even more notorious brutes than the Sandinistas (http://www.conservapedia.com/Sandinistas). According to this portrayal, the Contras "regularly destroyed health centers, schools (http://www.conservapedia.com/School), agricultural cooperatives, and community centers-symbols of the Sandinistas' social programs in rural areas." [2] (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Nicaragua_KH.html)
President Ronald Reagan (http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan) honored the Contras by describing them as the "Moral Equivalent of our Founding Fathers."


:mellow:

[AK]

Completely un-biased info here... just look at that American flag and the proudly proclaimed conservative stance :laugh:

[Chambered Word]

Whereas wikipedia has strong policies on avoiding emotive and "point-of-view" language Conservopedia is just riddled with it.

Didn't you hear? The truth is filled with liberal bias! :laugh:

This reminds me of 1984, except nobody takes Conservapedia seriously (I sincerely hope).


Now, no offence meant to all the Americans here and who do not fall into this category but I notice that many Americans in general seem to have very little world-knowledge and some odd ideas about things. They also seem to be very self-assured of their facts and stuff like Conservopedia (probably read by this group) just add more fuel to the fire of ignorance. The reason I am saying Americans is that I imagine Conservopedia is produced by and aimed at Republican voting Middle-America.

Americans - on average - seem considerably less educated about the world, however their frighteningly nationalistic tendencies are the bigger problem.

As funny as Conservapedia is, sometimes it makes me die a little on the inside though. Try Christopedia as well, last time I checked most of their pages were copied from Wikipedia but they've got an article on Barack Obama. Somewhat amusing.


btw, look at this
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anarchism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anarchism)
and this
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anarchy (http://www.anonym.to/?http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anarchy)

I'm reading the one on anarchy, it's actually pretty funny.



Subcategories of Anarchism



Philosophical Anarchism - Thinking about blowing shit up, but not actually doing it
Christian Anarchism - Often read The Bible backwards and/or while on the loo.
Anarchy in the U.K.- "I am an Antichrist. I am an Anarcheeeeeeeeeeest"


How to pretend to be an Anarchist



Rant about how much you hate capitalism and corporate America (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/America) right after purchasing your new Anti-Flag album you bought at Hot Topic.
Always make sure to have absolutely no idea who the hell Kropotkin, Bakunin, P.J. Proudhon or Max Stirner are.



EDIT: I think Christopedia has been shut down or something, it used to be at www.christopedia.us (http://www.christopedia.us). Now the only Christopedia I can find is an obvious parody site reminiscent of the Landover Baptist Church.

[The Ben G]

I occationally read Conservapedia when im in a bad mood to cheer me up. Good joke website (I know it is supposed to be true):laugh:

[Red Saxon]

...Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of Christianity (http://www.conservapedia.com/Christianity) and conservatism. I laughed so fucking hard when I read this. Also, from their Noam Chomsky article.




The overthrow of democratic and secular leader Mohammed Mossadegh (http://www.conservapedia.com/Mohammed_Mossadegh) in Iran and replacement with the Shah, a brutal dictator in 1953 (Done by the US and the UK)
The overthrow of social democrat Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala (http://www.conservapedia.com/Guatemala) in 1954
The overthrow of democratic socialist Salvador Allende in Chile on 9/11 in 1973
The Dirty War against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua (http://www.conservapedia.com/Nicaragua) in the 1980s
The backing of a brutal military dictatorship in El Salvador (http://www.conservapedia.com/El_Salvador) during the same time period
Selling weapons to a terror-state (Iran (http://www.conservapedia.com/Iran)) to fund another terrorist group (The Contras). (See Iran-Contra Affair (http://www.conservapedia.com/Iran-Contra_Affair))
Selling weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein (http://www.conservapedia.com/Saddam_Hussein) during the Iran-Iraq war.
Supporting the mujahideen which later became al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s
Invading Iraq (http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq) in 2003 despite lack of support from the UN (http://www.conservapedia.com/UN)
Blatant Support of Israel (http://www.conservapedia.com/Israel) which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his Jewish (http://www.conservapedia.com/Jew) ethnicity

The article calls him anti-American based on these facts. To me, it just seems like a list all the stuff that USA has done wrong.

[The Ben G]

This image was on their page of the Republican Party...

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/f/fc/GOP-presidents.jpg/300px-GOP-presidents.jpg
They think positively of Nixon? D:

Or Bush. lol

[Chambered Word]

10. Blatant Support of Israel (http://www.conservapedia.com/Israel) which Chomsky believes is a terror state despite his Jewish (http://www.conservapedia.com/Jew) ethnicity.


I feel violated just because of the fact that I've read this utter bullshit...:crying:

[Rusty Shackleford]

^ the right believes one should agree with a state based on their ethnicity? not new, but still disgusting.

[Sean]

Schafly is a nutter thats trying to rewrite the bible (to remove the obvious liberal bias) on that site for crying out loud.

[Red Saxon]

Schafly is a nutter thats trying to rewrite the bible (to remove the obvious liberal bias) on that site for crying out loud.Shall we counter with a version of the Bible of our own?

Matthew 3:15

Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to kill the bourgeois ." Then John consented.

[anticap]

I was blocked a couple of years ago after my first edit, which consisted of a citation request for a creationist belief posited as fact.

[Leif]

Notice the long list of leftist 'terrorists' and the rather glib list of Right wing violence. [Also notice Al-Qaeda being lumped in with the IRA, ALF and ELF, weird.]

Anyone up for some wiki-subversion?

[Chambered Word]

Notice the long list of leftist 'terrorists' and the rather glib list of Right wing violence. [Also notice Al-Qaeda being lumped in with the IRA, ALF and ELF, weird.]

Anyone up for some wiki-subversion?

Perhaps, how?

[Abc]

A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attentionyep 100% un-biased unlike that godless wikipedia :laugh:

Spanish War children were evacuated to Britain, Belgium, the Soviet Union, Portugal, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and other European countries. Many of them never came back. Others came back to "advise" Fidel Castro in Cuba.
1000 internet points to who ever figures out WTF they are talking about :confused:

[Nolan]

Notice the long list of leftist 'terrorists' and the rather glib list of Right wing violence. [Also notice Al-Qaeda being lumped in with the IRA, ALF and ELF, weird.]

Anyone up for some wiki-subversion?

Im in. :cool:

[Nolan]

We should make detailed, point by point rebuttals to their articles on anything to do with Marxism, Anarchism, or the Progressive movement in general.

[GPDP]

Alright, poll time!

Which is worse, Conservapedia or Metapedia?

For those who don't know, Metapedia is the Nazi version of Wikipedia.

[Nolan]

Alright, poll time!

Which is worse, Conservapedia or Metapedia?

For those who don't know, Metapedia is the Nazi version of Wikipedia.


Conservapedia for the lulz

Metapedia for sickening

[Chambered Word]

We should make detailed, point by point rebuttals to their articles on anything to do with Marxism, Anarchism, or the Progressive movement in general.

I thought about this, how can we get it published and circulated on the internet once we've done it?

Also: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Deracination_ideology

A bit worrying, lol.

[Nolan]

I thought about this, how can we get it published and circulated on the internet once we've done it?

Also: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Deracination_ideology

A bit worrying, lol.

Sick bastards.

Someone could write an article on why race is only a social construct and how racism is a tactic of the bourgeoisie to divide and conquer the proletariat. Someone write! I'll attempt one later.

As for the conservapedia responses, first we could put them on here with links to the articles in question.

[Red Isa]

Ignorance is funny
http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_marriage

[anticap]

We should make detailed, point by point rebuttals to their articles on anything to do with Marxism, Anarchism, or the Progressive movement in general.

Conservapedia is insignificant. Most people recognize it as farcical. Your efforts would be better spent combating the systemic ruling-class ideological bias at Wikipedia, which most people actually trust as a source.

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's a prime example of ignorance and idiocy form the right.

It is an pieace of art which must remain on the interwebz forever.

My favourite piece so far is:

"Rosa Luxemburg was a Polish (http://conservapedia.com/Polish)-born Communist (http://conservapedia.com/Communist) terrorist (http://conservapedia.com/Terrorist) who was one of the founders of the German (http://conservapedia.com/Germany) Communist Party"

[Chambered Word]

"Rosa Luxemburg was a Polish (http://conservapedia.com/Polish)-born Communist (http://conservapedia.com/Communist) terrorist (http://conservapedia.com/Terrorist) who was one of the founders of the German (http://conservapedia.com/Germany) Communist Party"

I have to see this article! :laugh::laugh::laugh:


Your efforts would be better spent combating the systemic ruling-class ideological bias at Wikipedia, which most people actually trust as a source.

Kinda true actually, I've heard Wikipedia has issues with elitism amongst the editors.

[anticap]

Kinda true actually, I've heard Wikipedia has issues with elitism amongst the editors.

That's very true, in my experience, but it's not what I meant. I meant that WP suffers from systemic bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias), which skews the content in a generally pro-capitalist and strongly anti-communist/socialist/Marxist/anarchist direction. They're clearly aware of the existence of bias, and they wish to combat it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias); but in the main they seem to be in denial of any such bias in regard to the areas I just mentioned. That's been my experience, at least.

[zimmerwald1915]

I have to see this article! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
That is the article. The rest goes like this: "She was killed in Germany on January 15, 1919."

[Ravachol]

I thought about this, how can we get it published and circulated on the internet once we've done it?

Also: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Deracination_ideology

A bit worrying, lol.

Do note the pseudo-intellectual mumbling and usage of terms in a foreign language in order to sound scientific (Volkenhass where race hatred would have sufficed). The fun part is that metapedia is full of the same bullshit spewed over at stormfront (Ie. 'Jewish-caused cultural degeniration', 'Commies undermining our racial values',etc) only rephrased by someone with a vocabulary slightly larger than his left toe. Ie. saying 'Cultural Marxism', where they mean to say the aforementioned 'Jewish-caused cultural degeniration', remaining ignorant to the fact that Cultural Marxism doesn't seek to 'undermine' anything, it simply seeks to analyze and deconstruct social constructs such as race, culture and ethnicity.

Those silly nazis :rolleyes:

[Atlanta]

apparently the weather underground was partly founded by Cuban foreign intelligence.

Wouldn't Al Qaeda fit better under reactionary terrorism? or does anything anti american pass as left wing these days?

[Chambered Word]

or does anything anti american pass as left wing these days?

Yeah you pretty much hit the nail on the head, lol.