first of all, i of course agree that any article you read on wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt considering that it’s based in the democratic creation of the truth rather than the selection of the truth. the fact that majority rule decides the fate of what is and what is not the truth is indeed a terrifying example of democracy at work. wikipedia can be used as a starting point for research to obtain ideas and gather sources, but definitely should NOT be the source. secondly, if conservapedia supposedly has researched and cited its articles, then why would they simply not post their ‘truths’ on wikipedia, where anyone can edit the content and is accessible by a much larger audience? therefore, it appears that the point of conservapedia is simply to create conflict rather than clearify the facts. the whole reason the author develped conservadpedia was due to the supposed liberal slant on wikipedia, but haven’t they just done the same thing? hypocritical? um, yeah!

one reader suggested that “of course this is a private site and freedom of speech and all et cetera and whatnot but, the point of the criticism seems (appropriately so) to be that, well, if this is how “conservatives” want to present themselves, they do so while risking the perception that conservatism is a view held by narrow-minded, ignorant, backwards and stubbornly stupid and foolhardy bigots.” i generally don’t view conservatives in this manner, but sites like this definitely are not helping their image.

another reader comments:

If wikipedia has any kind of “bias,” it comes in the form of majority consensus. Why is it that when conservatives are in the minority, something is wrong with the population?

Why is a belief in creationism not religious bias? It ignores the facts in favor of a three thousand year old story. Are these people really so narrow-sighted as to believe that information is only accurate when it comes either from their mouths or from the text of the Bible?

The great thing about wikipedia is that conservatives have exactly the same “say” as liberals…. an idea known as democracy. The “conservapedia” is nothing more than an thinly veiled attempt at pushing the right-wing’s agenda. I’m sure the conservapedia lists creationism as “the only idea that makes sense” and global warming as “factually incorrect.” (These are the arguments I’ve heard from conservatives… unfortunately, most are unable to explain, elaborate further, or otherwise back up their opinions with facts).

and what about political conservatism? “Lets examine just a few of the most infamous Conservatives in the History of the world were:”

The late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.), his conservative, segregationist politics,Hitler, Mussolini, and Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Rush Limbaugh . All of these men had/have Conservatism as their main psychological motivation. and shared the same traits. At the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and with that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression
Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
Uncertainty avoidance
Need for cognitive closure
Terror management

On the Bell curve of those who shared these propensities, with Reagan being the least and Hitler being the most extreme. Bush is just a standard deviation to the left of Hitler. Fear is his political tool just as it was other despots throughout history. I base this on the paper: “Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition,” published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin. They generally hide these in things called Libraries.

i never understood wikipedia as having a political slant and most people don’t as it’s equally accessible and editable to both sides (it’s democratic). finally, in the end there is one true set of facts, and “to pretend otherwise is to loose touch with reality and totally immerse oneself in the apparent psychosis of all modern american media forms.” so when you’re searching for the real truth, look towards reliable sources and even go to the library (you know…those useful houses of knowledge filled with books (and truth) in our cities).