Essay:Conservapedia is nonsense
|
This essay is an original work by RationalWiki users. (see the page history for a list of the contributors) It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas. Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts. |
Written by LlamaPastor31 'Wiki' is a Hawaiian word
Conservapedia is nonsense. There is no denying it. Conservapedia is nonsense and has been ever since Nov. 2006. So I am going to be talking about why Conservapedia is nonsense and should not be used as a fair encyclopedia.
First of all, Wikipedia has no liberal bias. That was mad from the beginning. Look at this. They have an official policy against bias. All Wikipedia content is neutral. Andrew Schlafly is quite obviously mad if he thinks that Wikipedia has a liberal bias and therefore should be replaced by a new encyclopedia with a conservative bias.
Secondly, Conservapedia focuses on the fact that conservatives are better than anyone else. That is not so. I'm not politically biased in any way, and I don't think conservatives are bad, I think Conservapedia is bad. To be a good, fair, neutral encyclopedia that someone would want to use as a knowledge base, you need to have no political bias and focus on the actual events/places/objects, rather than X is a Liberal Conspiracy! or something along those lines. So if you think Conservapedia is better than Wikipedia as a news source/knowledge base, you too are mad.
So that's it from me (well almost actually. I still need to talk about some other stuff and things).
Conservapedia is nonsense. It says, 'Liberals are mad! Liberals are mad!' and it tries to point out bad ideas that are actually good. So next time you're doing a project or something, don't use CP. Use Wikipedia, or some book or something. But not Conservapedia. OK?