Debate:Who consults Conservapedia?

(Is it good manners to have Debate pages at RW? Some of those at CP are quite fun)

Most RW and/or CP editors READ CP articles, as well as the readers of evil liberal blogs - the boom of the latter probably being several months ago. But is there ANYBODY who consults it to gather information, as people did with encyclopedias and do with Wikipedia?

In my opinion, no. The only people I may think of are the poor children homeschooled by Mr. Schlafly in person, and only for his lessons of American History or Economics. But I'm sure they too use Wikipedia when they have to write an assignment of a couple of pages.

Would a conservativerepublicanchristianwackofundamentalistbushistwarmongercreationist ever consult CP? I don't think so. First, they usually don't look for information, so no pedias for them (liberal bias showing here). Second, for political matters they have all those blogs, starting with Coulter, while for creationist propaganda Creationwiki is much better than CP.

So, is there ANYBODY who consults Conservapedia? Editor at CP 03:43, 16 November 2007 (EST)

I wouldn't
The only reason I would go to Conservapedia is for a good laugh. It offers opinions to try to disuade people from believing scientific facts that have just about been proven.

I would
Certainly - to see what Those People think. Beyond that, there's not a reliable fact in there, 99.9% of it is editorial and personal opinion. Apart from the New Gay Plague MRSA article, that is. DogP  19:30, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I wouldn't

 * Good question, I certainly wouldn't for information - why would read an encyclopedia designed to be biased? I suppose I might read it to see what the American Right feels about a particular issue - but I never have. (PS. is this the right way to respond on a debate page? We use them so infrequently that I don't think we have any guidelines.)--Bobbing up 03:55, 16 November 2007 (EST)

I would be very if anyone regularly used CP a a general purpose encyclopedia. I imagie most of it viewers are people who are curious about what it is and how it presents information, and while most do it in a mocking way, there are undoubtedly some who do not. However, if someone, in their day-to-day life, comes across a reference to something they may not know much about, take as a random example The Edict of Nantes, I seriously doubt (no matter how conserative the person is) they will go to CP to learn about it. Good thing too, as they have two brief sentences on it [Note: I did not pick that example because I knew CP had very little information on it. I picked it before seeing the article, correctly assuming that their entry was sub-par]. I don't know if the person seeking information would go to Wikiepdia, google, a paper encyclopedia or dictionary, or call thier friend who majored in history, but they are not going to go to Conservapedia. The only areas where it is "better" than Wikipedia (and by "better" I mean it has information you can't get on WP) are those articles where it introduces extreme bias and conjecture, if not outright lies. Those are its most viewed articles, as they love to tell us. Of course, someone who reads CP to get further arguments on why homosexuals are subhuman is not using it as the general purpose encyclopedia it claims to be. It should really give up trying to boost its article count by copy/pasting glossary entries on every term used by the USDA (they have an article on Wind erodibility group, but none on George II), and instead be more like RW, concentrating on addressing certain issues from a certain standpoint, giving up the pretence of being an encyclopedia entirely. They clearly have no interest in writing anything else. The only reason they have 3/4 of their articles is because of their stupid contests, where people cut and paste crap they don't even read, or write two sentences of their own, not to spread knowledge but to get points and beat the other team. After Crociote writes his Campinas Brazil Temple article, is anybody going to read it every again? Of course not. Maybe a sysop doing some clean up, but to them it will just be work, not knowledge. It never will be an encyclopedia that is used like Wikipedia is. They should quit the charade. DickTurpis 11:05, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia violates the very "Commandments" it set down in almost every article I can think of. However, if I went and edited all of Schlafly's opinions out of the articles and even quoted the exact rule, I would probably be reported to my ISP for vandalism or something. They masquerade (very poorly, might I add) under the guise of an "unbiased encyclopedia", when in reality they are far more biased in the opposite direction of Wikipedia, if Wikipedia is liberally biased at all. And they call liberals hypocrites... ––UnseenForces 22:16, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Competition
Yea! Competition time! If the Conservaborg can have them why can't we?. I suggest a competition to find a link or links to CP recommending it as a serious source of educational, clean, and concise information. Perhaps a score system of points per link. A tentative rules suggestion:


 * Links must not be from sites with connections to CP or their sysops. That is links should not be self generated.

Any others?

Auld Nick 17:38, 17 November 2007 (EST)