There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Conservapedia talk:Best of Conservapedia
"Cuba is a prison island located in the Caribbean Sea, 90 miles south of "Freedom" aka Florida.
It is the only Communist apartheid tyranny in the Western Hemisphere and is considered the worst dictatorship in this world. Its former high level of freedom and prosperity was destroyed by the evil dictator Fidel Castro. "
And they call it pedia ?
Hey guys. Feel free to delete this from the talk page, but mother of fuck, CP's so so so wrong. Anyone who'd pay for Andy's wisdoms, quite frankly, deserves them. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Why don't it look pretty?
Like what the WIGO page itself and the archives does look like all pretty and that y'know? (With the pretty boarders around each entry and a green/yellow/red bar (but no up/down arrows of course)) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
What the hell?
Why is "balls" listed here, and why does it apparently have a score of 186?! I would normally assume stuff like this is vandalism, but I have no idea how to vandalize an automatically maintained archive, nor how to fix it. Wehpudicabok (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, what IS up with all the 'Balls' entries? This is automated so it shouldn't be possible to rewrite? DogP (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
By describing events on conservapedia as worse than they are (the bias gradually grew probably because no one dared admit it was logically possible), and using humor as an apparent excuse for the misrepresentation, this page looks less neutral than conservapedia articles themselves.
I know that reading biased material for prolonged durations will cause one to write biased material to describe the biased material (who wants to be unfairly burdened by an obligation to be neutral?) so I cannot say that I wouldn't have done the same. But it's a much stronger disillusionment when learning of flaws from real dialogue without attributing the disillusionment to the opinions of RationalWiki. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)