Conservapedia / k ə n s ɜːr v ə p i d i ə / is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative points of view. The website was started in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly , sound of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly , [3] [4] to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias present in Wikipedia . [5] [6] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content.

And acceptance of fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism . [9] [10] Conservapedia’s “Conservative Bible Project” is a crowd-sourced version of the Bible which conservapedia claims will be “free of corruption by liberal untruths.” [11]

The website HAS RECEIVED negative reactions from the mainstream media , as well as from notable political figures, Including Commentators and journalists, [12] [13] and HAS-been Historically Criticized for bias and inaccuracies. [14] [15] [16]


Conservapedia was created in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard – and Princeton -educated attorney and a homeschool teacher. [4] He started the project after reading a student’s assignment using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred. [17] Although he was “an early Wikipedia enthusiast,” as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly , Schlafly was concerned about bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly undid edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings . [12] Schlafly expressed hope that Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived in Wikipedia . [5] [14] [18]

The “Eagle Forum University” online education program, qui est associated with Phyllis Schlafly ‘s Eagle Forum organization, uses material for various online shopping, Including US history, stored is Conservapedia. [6] [19] [20] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular race topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students. [20]

Running on MediaWiki software, [3] [6] the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest articles dating from November 22. [5] [6] [18] By January 2012, Conservapedia contained over 38,000 pages, not counting pages intended For internal discussion and collaboration, minimal “stub” articles, and other miscellany. [21] Conservapedia is a collection of articles on the subject matter of the Conservapedia. [22] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia” that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages. [14] [23] It was, At one point, the most-viewed page on the site. [24]

Editorial viewpoints and policies

Conservapedia has editorial policies designed to prevent vandalism and what happens. According to the Australian , “the Conservapedia”, “Conservapedia”, “Conservapedia”, “Conservapedia”, “Conservapedia”, “Conservapedia”, “Conservapedia”, “Conservapedia” and ” Often circular “and” contradictions, self-serving rationalizations and hypocrisies abound. ” [25]

Comparison to Wikipedia

Shortly after its launch in 2006, Schlafly described the site as being competition for Wikipedia, saying “Wikipedia has gone the way of CBS News. [26] Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia. Articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as its alleged liberal ideology. [14]

Launching the online encyclopedia project, Schlafly asserted the need for an alternative to Wikipedia due to editorial philosophy conflicts. The site’s “Conservapedia Commandments” [27] differ from Wikipedia’s editorial policies. Wikipedia’s policies include a neutral point of view [28] and avoiding original research . [29] [30] In response to Wikipedia’s core policy of neutrality, Schlafly HAS Stated: “It’s not possible for an encyclopedia to be neutral I mean let’s take a points of view, let’s disclose That points of view to the reader.” [ 5] and “Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators.

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian , Schlafly stated, “I’ve tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who have it in their case. -so editing Wikipedia is no longer viable approach “. [18] On March 7, 2007, Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 ‘s flagship morning show, Today , opposed Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly Several Concerns raised: that the item on the Renaissance does not give Any credit to Christianity, That Wikipedia 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. Schlafly also asked that the Wikipedia policy of allowing both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias. [31] [32] [33]

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.” It also does not permit “unauthorized mirroring.” [34] Wikipedia 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 Giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results. ” [14] : 4


The site has stated that it prohibits unregistered users from editing entries due to vandalism , disruption or defamation . Brian Macdonald, a Conservapedia editor, commented that vandalism was intended to “cause people to say,” That Conservapedia is just wacko. “According to Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times , Macdonald spent many hours every day reverting” malicious editing “. Vandals had inserted “errors, pornographic photos and satire.” For example, US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was “a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants”. [17]

Other editorial policies

Conservapedia states that “American English spellings are preferred. 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. [35] Initially, Schlafly [36] and other Conservapedia editors [24] considered Wikipedia’s policy author 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” , “As of today,” he said. The commandments also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edicts that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam . [27] Conservapedia policies encourage users to choose usernames “based on [their] real name or initials”, and users who have deemed “frivolous” by the admins are blocked; [37] one of the site ‘ Wikipedia’s “substantial anti-intellectual element” Wikipedia’s “substantial anti-intellectual element”. [38]

Conflict with scientific views

Various Conservapedia articles. On March 19, 2007, the British free newspaper Metro ran the article “Weird, wild wiki on what goes goes”, articulating the dismissal of the Conservapedia by the Royal Society , saying “People need to be very careful about where they look for scientific information “. [16] A Los Angeles Times journalist noted Conservapedia’s criticism of the children’s stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia’s scientific content is accurate. [17]


ALTHOUGH not all contributors Conservapedia subscribe to a young-earth creationist point of view of form-administrator Terry Koeckritz Stated to the Los Angeles Times That He Did not take the Genesis Creation account literally [17] : 9 -sources-have Attributed to the poor science coverage An authoritative home-schooling textbooks. [5] [6] [16] 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 are quotes from the works of home-schooling textbook author Jay L. Wile . [39]


Conservapedia’s article on evolution presents as a naturalistic theory that lacks support and that conflicts with evidence in the fossil record that creationists perceive to support creationism. [40] [41] The entry also suggests that the Bible has been more scientifically correct than the scientific community. [42] Schlafly has defended the statement as an alternative to evolution. [5]


According to Conservapedia, global warming is a “liberal hoax”. [43] [44] An entry on the ” Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus ” has received particular attention, although Schlafly has asserted that this was a parody of environmentalism. [13] As of March 4, 2007, the entry has been deleted. [45]


Conservapedia asserts that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, [46] [47] while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association. [48] [49]


Conservapedia has also received criticism for its articles concerning the theory of relativity , particularly on their entry titled “Counterexamples to Relativity”, an article that lists examples. Warning Was drawn to the section by a Talking Points Memo posting, in qui Reported They are Conservapedia’s entry and Stated That Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia’s founder, “has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity.” [50] New Scientist , a science magazine, criticized Conservapedia’s views on relativity and responded to several of its arguments against it. [51] Against Conservapedia’s statements, New Scientist stated that it is unlikely to find a single physicist that would claim the whole of the theory of general relativity , and that the theory of relativity has passed every test it has been put through. [51] : 1

University of Maryland physics professor Robert L. Park has also criticized the theory of relativity, arguing that its criticism of the principle as well as the World “confused a physical theory with a moral value. [52] Similarly, New Scientist stated at the end of their article that: [51] : 2

In the end there is no liberal conspiracy at work. Unfortunately, humanities often confuse the issue by misusing the term “relativity”. The theory in no way encourages relativism , regardless of what Conservapedia may think. The theory of relativity is not only a matter of time, but also of the dimensional space-time.

In October 2010, Scientific American Criticized Conservapedia’s attitude towards the Theory of Relativity, assigning them a zero score on their 0 to 100 fallacy-versus-fact “Science Index”, describing Conservapedia as “the online encyclopedia run by conservative lawyer Andrew Schlafly, Which implies that Einstein’s theory of relativity is part of a liberal plot. ” [53]

Another claim is that ” Albert 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. [13] [15] [31]


The Guardian of the United Kingdom has been referred to Conservapedia’s politics as “right-wing”, [18] although it is sometimes described as far-right or New Right . [54] [55] [56]


Many Conservapedia articles criticize values ​​as its editors associate with “liberal ideology”. The article “Liberal” once Began with text Originating [57] from Schlafly Personally: “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 attention, and who uses many words to say nothing. ” [58] Leonard Pitts quoted it in a critical commenting “You may judge Conservapedia’s own bias by reading its definition of liberal”. [59] Conservapedia’s entry on ‘Liberal’ has since been changed to begin with:

A liberal is someone who favors censorship of Christianity plus increased government spending and power, as in ObamaCare. Increasingly liberals with the homosexual agenda, including same-sex marriage. Many liberals favor a state where people receive endless entities without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles without having any meaningful values ​​of their own.

Partisan politics

Schlafly Said in an interview with National Public Radio That Wikipedia’s section on the history of the Democratic Party is an “attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson” and That this statement is “specious and worth criticizing.” [5] He aussi HAS Claimed That Wikipedia is “six times more liberal than the American public,” a claim Labeled That has-been “sensational” by Andrew Chung of the Canadian newspaper the Toronto Star . [14]

John Cotey of the St. Petersburg Times on the Conservapedia article about the Democratic Party on the other side of the marriage , and associated with the homosexual agenda . [60]

The Conservapedia entries on form Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama are critical of their respective subjects. [17] During the 2008 Presidential Campaign , its entry on Obama asserted that he “has no clear personal achievement as to the likely result of affirmative action”. Some Conservapedia editors urged que le statement be changed or deleted, goal Schlafly, a classmate of Obama Responded by Asserting que la Harvard Law Review , the Harvard University legal newspaper for qui Obama and Schlafly Worked together, [61] racial uses quotas and Stated : “The statement about affirmative action is accurate and will remain in the entry”. [62] 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.” [63]

In contrast, the articles about conservative politicians, such as US Republican President Ronald Reagan and former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher , have been observed as praising their respective subjects. [17] [64] 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” Wishing to learn about Wikipedia entry, Which Sabbatini found to be plagued by disputes over inclusion of potentially controversial details about her life. [65]


In July 2008, American Prospect associate editor Ezra Klein derided the Conservapedia item is atheism In His weekly column, “Did Daniel DeGroot notes, you’ve got to wonder which ‘unreasonable’ Explanations They rejected When Formulating That entry”. [66]

The website sometimes adopts a strongly critical stance against figures that are perceived as political or ideological opponents. For instance, in May 2009, Vanity Fair and The Spectator Reported That Conservapedia’s item is atheist Richard Dawkins featured a picture of Adolf Hitler at the top. [67] [68]


The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for Numerous factual inaccuracies [15] [16] and factual relativism . [15] Wired magazine noted that Conservapedia was “attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of articles written by mischief makers”. [13] Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that “leftist subversives” may have been creating deliberate parody entries. [31] Conservapedia has been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective, [3] [13] and Theopedia, a wiki with a Reformed theology focus. [33] Fox News , a Christian version of social networking site MySpace, and GodTube , a Christian version of video site YouTube. [69]

Tom 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 more guilty of the crime they are attributing to Wikipedia . [14] Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia “a web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians.” [70] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, “offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective.” [71] APC magazine perceives this to be representative of Conservapedia ‘ S own problem with bias. [42]Conservative Christian commentator Rod Dreher has been highly critical of the website “Conservative Bible Project”, an ongoing retranslation of the Bible which Dreher attributes to “insane hubris” on the part of “right-wing ideologues.” [72]

The project has also been criticized for promoting a false dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting relativism with the implicit idea that there are often equally valid interpretations of the facts. [15]Matthew Sheffield, writing in the conservative daily newspaper The Washington Times , Conservapedia are often “incomplete”. [73] Author Damian Thompson asserts that the purpose of Conservapedia is to “dress up nonsense as science”. [74]

Bryan Ochalla, writing for the LGBT magazine The Advocate , referred to the project as “Wikipedia for the bigoted”. [75] On the satirical news program The Daily Show , comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality. [76] Writing in The Australian , columnist Emma Jane described Conservapedia as “a disturbing parallel universe where the ice age is a theoretical period, intelligent design is empirically testable, and relativity and geology are junk sciences.” [25]

Opinions criticizing the Site Rapidly Spread Throughout The blogosphere around early 2007. [13] [22] Schlafly Appeared one radio programs Today is BBC Radio 4 [36] and All Things Considered is NPR [5] to the Chat the website around That Time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC program The Hour for the same purpose. [77]

Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about Conservapedia. [17] Matt Barber, Policy Director for the Conservative Christian Political Group Concerned Women for America , praised Conservapedia as a more family-friendly and accurate alternative to Wikipedia. [78]

Wired magazine, in an article entitled “Ten Impressive, Weird and Amazing Facts About Wikipedia”, highlighted several of the articles, including those on “Atheism and obesity” and “Hollywood values”, amongst others. It also highlighted Conservapedia’s “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia” article, which encourages readers to contact Jimmy Wales and tell him to “sort it out.” [79]

Conservapedia’s use of Wikipedia’s alternative encyclopedia has been mirrored by other sites, such as (formerly GodTube), QubeTV and MyChurch, which adopted the format of the more prominent Facebook, YouTube and MySpace, respectively. [3] [69] [80]

Wikipedia’s co-creator Jimmy Wales said about Conservapedia that ” free culture knows no bounds” and “the reuse of our work to build variants is directly in line with our mission.” [81] Wales denied Schlafly’s claims of liberal bias in Wikipedia. [14]


In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine , repeatedly attempted to edit the disease. Conservapedia administrators “questioned his credentials and shut off debate”. [17] Several editors whose accounts were blocked by Conservapedia administrators, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki, a sometimes satirical and sometimes serious wiki website with articles written from a secular, progressiveperspective. [82]

RationalWiki’s self-stated purpose is to analyze and refute “pseudoscience”, the ” anti-science movement”, and “crank ideas”, as well as to conduct “explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism ” and explore “how these are handled in the media. ” [83] [84]

According to an article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2007, RationalWiki members “monitor Conservapedia, and their own admission-engagement in acts of cyber-vandalism.” [17]

Lenski dialogue

On June 9, 2008, New Scientist published an Article Describing Richard Lenski ‘s 20-year E. coli experiment , qui que la Reported Evolved bacteria metabolize the Ability to citrate. [85] Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data. Lenski replied again that the 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 biological labs, and that he felt on Conservapedia which He saw as brusque and offensive, Including claims of outright deceit. [86] The Daily Telegraphlater called Lenski’s reply “one of the greatest and most comprehensive put-downs in scientific argument”. [87]

The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia page entitled “Lenski dialog”, [88] 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”, [89] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data. [90] 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. [91]

The Dialogue between Lenski and Conservapedia is featured in Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution in Lenski’s Research. [92] [93]

Conservative Bible Project

Conservapedia hosts the “Conservative Bible Project”, a project aiming to rewrite the English translation of the Bible in order to remove the terms described as “liberal bias”. [94] The project intends to remove sections of the Bible which are judged by Conservapedia’s founder to be later liberal additions. [11] These include the story of the adulteress in the Gospel of John in which Jesus declares “Let him be without sin the first stone”. [94]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 was 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. ” [94]

The Conservative Christian Bible. [95] [96] 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 ‘ “. [97] 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. [98] Joseph Farah , Editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily , stated: “I’ve seen some incredibly stupid and misguided initiatives by ‘conservatives’ in my day, but this one takes on the cake” and “There’s certainly nothing conservative about rewriting the Bible.” [99] Creation Ministries International wrote “Forcing the Bible to conform to a certain political agenda, not a perversion of the agenda, but a perversion of the Word of God. Correct ‘Bibles. ” [100]

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. [101] [102]This was followed by an interview between Colbert and Schlafly on December 8, 2009. [103]


  1. Jump up^ Conservapedia general disclaimer. Conservapedia.
  2. Jump up^ “ Site Info” . Alexa Internet . Retrieved February 13, 2017 .
  3. ^ Jump up to:d Coyle, Jake (May 10, 2007). “Conservapedia, QubeTV mimic popular sites with spin to right” . Archived from the original on June 13, 2011 . Retrieved March 26, 2010 .
  4. ^ Jump up to:b “Andy Schlafly” . Eagle Forum University. Archived from the original on October 6, 2014 . Retrieved May 14, 2008 .
  5. ^ Jump up to:h Siegel, Robert (March 13, 2007). “Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?” . NPR . Retrieved July 26,2007 .
  6. ^ Jump up to:e “Conservapedia: christlich-konservative Alternative zu Wikipedia” . Heise Online (in German). March 2, 2007.
  7. Jump up^ Walker, Clarence E; Smithers, Gregory D (2009). The Preacher and the Politician: Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama, and Race in America . University of Virginia Press. p. 3. ISBN  978-0-8139-3247-7 .
  8. Jump up^ Gefter, Amanda; Biever, Celeste (August 11, 2010). “E = mc 2 ? Not on Conservapedia” . New Scientist .
  9. Jump up^ Stöcker, Christian (March 6, 2007). “Wikipedia for Christian Fundamentalists: The Lord’s Encyclopedia” . Der Spiegel . Retrieved April 9, 2015 .
  10. Jump up^ Vettese, Troy (April 21, 2007). “What’s the Difference Between Wikipedia and Conservapedia?” . History News Network . Retrieved June 6, 2017 .
  11. ^ Jump up to:b Wasserman, Tommy (October 19, 2009). “Conservapedia Bible Project – Free of Corruption by Liberal Untruths?” . Evangelical Textual Criticism . Retrieved October 19, 2009 .
  12. ^ Jump up to:b Zeller, Shawn (March 5, 2007). “Conservapedia: See Under” Right ” ” . The New York Times . Retrieved June 8, 2008 .
  13. ^ Jump up to:g Calore, Michael (February 28, 2007). “What Would Jesus Wiki?” . Wired . Archived from the original on July 18, 2008 . Retrieved February 28, 2007 .
  14. ^ Jump up to:h Chung, Andrew (March 11, 2007). “A US conservative wants to set Wikipedia right” . Toronto Star . Archived from the original on March 13, 2007.
  15. ^ Jump up to:e the notion “that there is always a second, equally valid interpretation of the facts”. Clarke, Conor. (2007). “A fact of one’s own” . The Guardian , March 1, 2007.
  16. ^ Jump up to:d “Weird, wild wiki on what goes goes” . Metro . March 19, 2007 . Retrieved March 25, 2007 .
  17. ^ Jump up to:i Simon, Stephanie (June 22, 2007). “A conservative’s answer to Wikipedia” . Los Angeles Times . Retrieved November 2, 2007 .
  18. ^ Jump up to:d Johnson, Bobbie (March 1, 2007). “Rightwing website challenges ‘liberal bias’ of Wikipedia” . The Guardian . London.
  19. Jump up^ “American History Play One” . Conservapedia . 2007 . Retrieved March 5, 2007 .
  20. ^ Jump up to:b “American History 101” . Eagle Forum University. April 30, 2007. Archived from the original on May 26, 2008 . Retrieved March 5, 2007 .
  21. Jump up^ “Conservapedia statistics” . Conservapedia. Archived from the original on January 23, 2012 . Retrieved January 22, 2012 .
  22. ^ Jump up to:b Decker, Edwin (July 25, 2007). “Sickopedia” . San Diego CityBeat . Retrieved May 22, 2008 .
  23. Jump up^ “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia” . Conservapedia. March 17, 2008 . Retrieved March 17, 2008 .
  24. ^ Jump up to:b Turner, Adam (March 5, 2007). “Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right” . IT Wire . Archived from the original on May 21, 2008 . Retrieved May 12, 2008 .
  25. ^ Jump up to:b Jane, Emma (January 8, 2011). “A parallel online universe”. The Australian . Retrieved January 9, 2011 .
  26. Jump up^ “From Conservapedia’s main page during month # 1” .
  27. ^ Jump up to:b “Conservapedia Commandments” . Conservapedia. April 12, 2008 . Retrieved April 12, 2008 .
  28. Jump up^ “Wikipedia: Neutral point of view” . Wikipedia. January 21, 2007 . Retrieved June 26, 2008 .
  29. Jump up^ “Wikipedia: Attribution” . Wikipedia . Retrieved June 26, 2008 .
  30. Jump up^ “Conservapedia: Guidelines” . Conservapedia. May 27, 2008 . Retrieved June 26, 2008 .
  31. ^ Jump up to:c Thomson, Iain (February 28, 2007). “Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia ‘bias ‘ ” . Information World Review . Archived from the original on January 15, 2009.
  32. Jump up^ Lewis, Shelley (2007)”Introducing ‘Conservapedia’ – Battling Wikipedia’s War on Christians, Patriots” The Huffington Post, February 23
  33. ^ Jump up to:b Zhang, Linda (March 7, 2007). “Conservapedia Challenges ‘Anti-Christian’ Wiki” . The Christian Post . Retrieved June 28,2008 .
  34. Jump up^ “Conservapedia Copyright” . Conservapedia. February 17, 2009 . Retrieved November 6, 2010 .
  35. Jump up^ “Spelling” . Manual of Style . Conservapedia. April 10, 2008 . Retrieved April 12, 2008 .
  36. ^ Jump up to:b “Today program” ( RealPlayer ) . BBC Radio 4. March 7, 2007 . Retrieved April 9, 2007 .
  37. Jump up^ “Log in / create account” . Conservapedia . Retrieved December 20, 2010 .
  38. Jump up^ “Conservapedia Guidelines: Member accounts” . Conservapedia . Retrieved May 5, 2010 .
  39. Jump up^ Zimmer, Carl (February 21, 2007). “Sources, Sources” . The Loom . Archived from the original on April 20, 2008 . Retrieved June 26, 2008 .
  40. Jump up^ Brown, Barrett (April 23, 2009). “Conservapedia: Bastion of the Reality-Denying Right” . Vanity Fair . Archived from the original on May 30, 2009.
  41. Jump up^ “Evolution” . Conservapedia. May 29, 2010 . Retrieved May 29, 2010 .
  42. ^ Jump up to:b Sbarski, Peter (March 10, 2007). “Wikipedia vs Conservapedia” . APC . Retrieved June 28, 2008 .
  43. Jump up^ Sinclair, Peter (September 10, 2015). “As Reality Closes in – Conservapedia Not Enough for Climate Deniers – Welcome to the Bubble” . . Retrieved February 15, 2016 .
  44. Jump up^ Schlafly, Andy (February 1, 2007). “Global warming” . Conservapedia . Retrieved February 15, 2016 .
  45. Jump up^ Schlafly, Andy (February 2007). “Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus” . Conservapedia. Archived from the original on March 4, 2007 . Retrieved February 28, 2007 .
  46. Jump up^ Andrew Chung (March 11, 2007). “Conservative wants to set Wikipedia right” . Toronto Star . Retrieved May 18, 2010 .
  47. Jump up^ Bagley, Steven H. (September 3, 2007). “Thoughts on a Conservapedia” . . Retrieved May 18, 2010.
  48. Jump up^ “WHO – Induced abortion does not Increase breast cancer risk” . Archived from the original on August 4, 2008 . Retrieved August 29, 2008 .
  49. Jump up^ Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G (March 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. PMID  15051280 . Doi : 10.1016 / S0140-6736 (04) 15835-2 .
  50. Jump up^ Carpentier, Megan (August 9, 2010). “Conservapedia: E = mc 2Is A Liberal Conspiracy” . TPMMuckracker . Talking Points Memo . Retrieved September 4, 2010 .
  51. ^ Jump up to:c Gefter, Amanda; Biever, Celeste (August 11, 2010). “E = mc2 ? Not on Conservapedia” . New Scientist . Retrieved September 4, 2010 .
  52. Jump up^ Park, Robert L. “Conservapedia: Countering the Liberal Bias of Wikipedia”.; August 13, 2010.
  53. Jump up^ Scientific American,October 2010, issue, “Science Index”, Page 22
  54. Jump up^ “What Conservapedia Is Really About – The Daily Dish” . The Atlantic . December 11, 2011 . Retrieved December 15, 2011 .
  55. Jump up^ Walker, Clarence Earl, and George Smithers. The preacher and the politician: Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama, and race in America. Charlottesville University of Virginia Press, 2009. “Those who express this view of American politics.” The Website Conservapedia for example … “
  56. Jump up^ Stecker, Frederick. The Podium, the Pulpit, and the Republicans: How Presidential Candidates Use Religious Language in American Political Debate. ABC-CLIO, 2011
  57. Jump up^ Andy Schlafly (February 1, 2009). “Liberal” . Conservapedia . Retrieved June 16, 2011 .
  58. Jump up^ “Liberal” . Conservapedia. June 16, 2011 . Retrieved June 16,2011 .
  59. Jump up^ Pitts, Leonard (October 19, 2009). “Jesus of Nazareth As Dick Cheney” . The Baltimore Sun . Retrieved June 16, 2011 .
  60. Jump up^ Cotey, John (March 16, 2007). “Conservative Web site counters the ‘bias’ of Wikipedia” . St. Petersburg Times . Retrieved July 3, 2008 .
  61. Jump up^ Harvard Law Review Board of Editors, Volume 104, 1990-1991, Group photo; A. Schlafly is second row from the top, second from left; B. Obama is in the third row from top, 7th from left. Retrieved from Harvard University Visual Information Access, August 10, 2011. See alsoHarvard Law Review # Alumni.
  62. Jump up^ Schlafly, Andrew (February 17, 2008). “Talk: Barack Obama” . Conservapedia . Retrieved March 27, 2008 .
  63. Jump up^ Muir, Hugh (October 3, 2007). “Guardian Diary” . The Guardian . London . Retrieved November 24, 2008 .
  64. Jump up^ Read, Brock (March 2, 2007). “A Wikipedia for the Right Wing” . Chronicle of Higher Education .
  65. Jump up^ Sabbatini, Mark (September 2, 2008). “Wikipedia war emerges over details about Palin” . The Juneau Empire . Retrieved September 2, 2008 .
  66. Jump up^ Klein, Ezra (July 28, 2008). “God’s Bathroom Floor” . The American Prospect . Retrieved May 16, 2013 .
  67. Jump up^ “Among the inmates” . The Spectator . May 7, 2009. Archived from the original on May 9, 2009 . Retrieved December 15,2011 .
  68. Jump up^ “Conservapedia: Bastion of the Reality-Denying Right | Blogs”. Vanity Fair . Retrieved December 15, 2011 .
  69. ^ Jump up to:b “Christian Godtube Provides Web-Video Alternative” . Fox News Channel. Associated Press. November 2, 2007 . Retrieved August 2, 2008 .
  70. Jump up^ Millham, Matt (June 15, 2008). “Faith takes strange forms on the Web” . Stars and Stripes . Retrieved June 25, 2008 .
  71. Jump up^ Gray, Tim (April 3, 2007). “Conservapedia: Far Righter Than Wikipedia” . . Retrieved June 27, 2008 .
  72. Jump up^ Dreher, Rod (October 1, 2009). “Conservatizing the Bible” . Beliefnet . Retrieved October 5, 2009 .
  73. Jump up^ Sheffield, Matthew (August 22, 2008). “Conservatives miss Wikipedia’s threat” . The Washington Times . Retrieved April 1,2010 .
  74. Jump up^ Thompson, Damian (2008). Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and Fake History . Atlantic Books. ISBN  1-84354-675-2 .
  75. Jump up^ Bryan Ochalla,”Wikipedia for the bigoted”. ArchivedJuly 8, 2011, at theWayback Machine. The Advocate, March 25, 2008, p. 12.
  76. Jump up^ “Episode 12087” . The Daily Show . June 27, 2007. Comedy Central. Black highlighted Conservapedia’sintroductory sentence”homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle”. In response, he said: “On Conservapedia, ‘gay’ sounds way more interesting!”
  77. Jump up^ Andrew Schlafly (May 21, 2008). Conservapedia on The Hour. Youtube.
  78. Jump up^ Barber, Matt (May 23, 2008). “Conservapedia: The Conservative Alternative” . Concerned Women for America. Archived from the original on May 27, 2008 . Retrieved September 13, 2008 .
  79. Jump up^ Abell, John C (January 12, 2011). “Ten Impressive, Weird And Amazing Facts About Wikipedia” . Wired . Retrieved January 13, 2011 .
  80. Jump up^ Thomson, Iain (April 30, 2007). “Christians take on YouTube with GodTube” . Archived from the original on September 2, 2007 . Retrieved March 26, 2010 .
  81. Jump up^ Biever, Celeste (February 26, 2007). “A conservative rival for Wikipedia?” . New Scientist .
  82. Jump up^ “RationalWiki: Community Standards” .
  83. Jump up^ “About” . Rationalwiki. September 19, 2010 . Retrieved October 16, 2010 .
  84. Jump up^ Keeler, Mary, Josh Johnson, and Arun Majumdar. “Crowdsourced Knowledge: Peril and Promise for Complex Knowledge Systems.”
  85. Jump up^ Holmes, Bob (June 9, 2008). “Bacteria makes major evolutionary shift in the lab” . New Scientist . Retrieved June 27, 2008 .
  86. Jump up^ Marshall, Michael (June 25, 2008). “Creationist critics get their comeuppance” . New Scientist . Retrieved June 27, 2008 .
  87. Jump up^ Chivers, Tom (October 23, 2009). “Internet rules and laws: the top 10, from Godwin to Poe” . The Daily Telegraph . London . Retrieved January 27, 2011 .
  88. Jump up^ “Conservapedia: Lenski Dialog” . Conservapedia. June 24, 2008 . Retrieved June 26, 2008 .
  89. Jump up^ Zimmer, Carl (June 24, 2008). “The Loom: Of Bacteria and Throw Pillows” . Archived from the originalon October 11, 2008 . Retrieved June 27, 2008 .
  90. Jump up^ Myers, PZ (June 24, 2008). “Lenski gives Conservapedia a lesson” . . Retrieved June 23, 2016 .
  91. Jump up^ Conservapedia has a little hangup over evolution, Charles Arthur, July 1, 2008, The Guardian Technology blog
  92. Jump up^ Chapter 5: “Before our very eyes (examples of evolution observed)”
  93. Jump up^ “Lenski affair” . RationalWiki . Retrieved August 4, 2015 .
  94. ^ Jump up to:c Gibson, David (October 7, 2009). “A Neocon Bible: What Would Jesus Say?” . Politics Daily . Retrieved October 7, 2009 .
  95. Jump up^ Franzen, Carl (October 7, 2009). “The Bible: Conservative Edition” . The Atlantic Wire . Retrieved October 7, 2009 .
  96. Jump up^ McGrath, James F. (December 7, 2009). “Translating the Bible is no joke.” . The Christian Science Monitor . Retrieved December 9, 2009 .
  97. Jump up^ “’s Conservative Bible Project aims to deliberate the bible” . Daily News . New York. October 6, 2009. Archived from the original on October 9, 2009 . Retrieved October 7, 2009 .
  98. Jump up^ “Do conservatives need their own Bible translation?” . Hot Air. October 6, 2009 . Retrieved October 7, 2009 .
  99. Jump up^ “Now ‘conservative’ twisting Scripture” . WorldNetDaily . October 22, 2009 . Retrieved October 23, 2009 .
  100. Jump up^ Politicizing Scripture: Should Christians welcome a ‘conservative Bible translation’? (Lita Cosner,Creation Ministries International, December 24, 2009)
  101. Jump up^ “The Colbert Report (October 7, 2009 episode)” . The Colbert Report . October 7, 2009.
  102. Jump up^ Collis, Clark (October 8, 2009). “Stephen Colbert wants you to put him in the Bible” . Entertainment Weekly (PopWatch) . Retrieved October 15, 2009 .
  103. Jump up^ “The Colbert Report (December 8, 2009 episode)” . The Colbert Report . December 8, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *