From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I like the logo and especially this comment about it.

About CP[edit]

I came here interested in what an encyclopedia intent on countering the liberal bias at Wikipedia (Examples) would look like. Although at Wikipedia it is claimed the intention is to avoid bias and promote a neutral point of view they do admit to systemic bias due to the nature of the project, but apparently untertake efforts to counter it[1]. Here at conservapedia the aim is to have a pro Conservative (US definition), pro Christian point of view[2] (fundamentalist Protestantism excepted[3]). Deceitful Liberals have found their way here and indulge in nefarious liberal behaviour. Strangely, such behaviour is mirrored point by point by creationists, no doubt a euphemism for Conservatives.


Like Wikipedia, consevapedia is a rule based project. Conservapedia prides itsel in having less rules (known as Commandments) and Guidelines than Wikipedia[4]. It has been pointed out[5] that Conservapedia really only has one rule:

Sysops may do whatever they want when ever they want, everyone else has to do what they are told[6].

This golden rule[7] ensures the pro Conservative (US definition), pro Christian point of view is maintained by silencing all dissent, including the removal of objections[8][9].


I myself, and a number of others, have been disciplined for dissent. I was blocked for a month [10]. The block was implemented at 07:23 on April 23 2007 by Karajou, the perspicacious Sysop who begat this snippet of timeless erudition:

The Bible has been proven to be a reliable historical and scientific document, and as such it stays. To back this claim up there will be relevent documentation and source material included in every article pertaining to the Bible. Fair enough? [11]

Karajou justified the block with "continued destructive mockery of this site; he was warned about it two days ago". Whether the block was due to this, my user page entry four minutes previously, or if it had something to do with the tasteless Conservapedia critique of the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page will remain a mystery. The all pervasive siege mentality makes free speech a rare commodity hereabouts, all the same, efforts are underway to quantify openmindedness.

The Coterie[edit]

What scores the coterie may have on the openmindedness scale I will leave to others to decide. The coterie are the busy bodies whose duty it is to protect conservative facts and remove liberal bias. They may or may not be identical with the anonymous Conservapedia Panel aka Student Panel[12]. This panel, also known by liberal opponents as the cabal[13][14][15], functions is a manner similar to that of a nomenklatura. Communication among members is through a clandestine Email loop[16]. Many of its liberal opponents have been blocked[17] "via the 90/10 rule" (Commandment No.7). It has been suggested this rule is used to "stifle criticism"[18].

The Coterie
Philip J. Rayment

Fave Pages[edit]

Pages which I think represent the Conservative ethos of Conservapedia:

I especially liked the requirement for authoritarian support, the defining of obscentity as anything which may be unsuitable for children and not letting liberasl censor conservative facts.

I learnt such conservative facts as that intelligent life in outer space has something to do with globalism, environmentalism, government spending and atheism. That Carl Sagan was a leader like Jimmy Carter and Adolf Hitler. Previously I thought he was a professor of astronomy.

Here I learnt that the Theory of Evolution is a liberal scam fueled by financial, ideological, political and historical incentives. I also learned that the Government is discriminating against religion by funding science. I was especially impressed by the conservative fact that there is a very high correlation between belief in the Theory of Evolution and opposition to classroom prayer (nearly 100% correlation). I assume because it is a conservative fact no source is necessary. I myself noticed a 100% correlation between breathing and belief in the Theory of Evolution. Am I onto something here?

Here I learnt how to quantify how liberal a group is. If there are no liberals in the group the quotient is zero. from then on its the ratio of liberals to conservatives in a group. So I presume a group of 10 with 8 liberals and two conservatives has a quotient of 0.8. Although defining liberalness remains problematic how does one treat an individual who seems to be 50% liberal and 50% conservative? Does one round up and make a liberal or round down to make a conservative, or does it depend on whether or not the objective of the exercise is to prove liberal bias?

Here I learned that exotheology and exobiology are a liberal belief system often used to promote pernicious ideas such as nuclear disarmament, globalism, environmentalism, and communism. Is there any connection to the secret Nazi base in Antarctica?[19] I also learned that although most scientists support continuing to spend money on searching for life in outer space they doubt its existence. I hope this article doesn't get AFDd.

I made a legitimate complaint about Aschlafly here. This was the outcome (apparently the complaint was bogus. Here I learned that some editors are more equal than others, all very Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Here I learned the reason why Seung-Hui Cho felt obliged to massacre many people at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. Conservapedia had the answer before the police, psychiatrists and any other expert group you care to mention. We now know it was evidently caused by his intensely anti-Christian, and perhaps anti-American, views. This is truly the Encyclopedia you can trust.

Aschlafly suggested I Build some good entries before more talk, talk, talk (at bottom). I thought 'fair enough' and did just that. I spent some time researching and improved the article Atheism. My improvements were reverted by Conservative with no justification on the talk page. I also improved the article Adultury. My improvements were reverted by Aschlafly with no justification on the talk page. The article is now locked. If I were to query these reverts and blocks on the talk pages would I then be in breach of Commandment No.7 Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account thus providing an excuse for my account to be blocked? When I point out some of the weaknesses of Conservapedia I get the feeling the messenger is being blamed for the message[20], or is it a case of the Emperor's new clothes?[21]

Here I learned that public schools do not teach that anything is morally wrong and that liberals, communists and scientists are deceitful people and assumedly can't be trusted.

Here I learned that my atlas was hideously wrong and subsequently got lost trying to find other countries on Conservapedia.

Interesting Userpages[edit]

  • AKjeldsen has kindly taken some time to enlighten us. He has since been deleted and now has a blog.
  • Teresita has a cool Mustang GT and some interesting thoughts and observations to share with us. She is unfortunately no longer with us (Her pages have now been deleted. It would seem that uniquely American doctrine free speech has been shunned in favor of censorship, perhaps for the protection of the people, or to keep the group of people from knowing something bad about the empowered people. Ignorance is truely bliss.)
  • This Human and his interesting insights into behavior. His observations have been ... wait for it ... deleted.
  • AmesG has a thing about science and falsifiability. His science is not particularly welcome here and he is usually under a block. His page falsifiability seems to have vanished.
  • Myk has some interesting Conservapedia Quotes and seems to have figured why conservapedia is doomed to fail. Myk also suffers from blocks.
  • Sid_3050 has an interesting history of Bans and Warnings. He has since been deleted.
  • Reginod is, among other things, trying to figure out the rules here. He hasn't contributed for a few weeks but still seems to be among us, or has he been blocked?


  1. Countering systemic bias
  2. Pro Christian Pro...
  3. removed unsupported liberal bias
  4. Policies and guidelines
  5. Manual of Style
  6. Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked (Conservapedia Guidelines)
  8. An interesting conversation of mine here got deleted here. I apparently falsely assumed that TK had deleted that. According to him "Niandra reverted one of her own (newer) edits, to an earlier version made by someone else, which completely wiped all the stuff after, and before my post to Bill M." I apologize for the liberal falsehood (see here).
  9. National Geographic is a scientific journal. It's not opinion... deleted by Aschlafly.
  10. from the Ipblocklist (07:23, 23 April 2007 Karajou (Talk | contribs) blocked "WhatIsG0ing0n (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (continued destructive mockery of this site; he was warned about it two days ago)
  11. Karajou 15:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT) talk:Commandments
  12. The student panel
  13. How to join the Cabal?
  14. The arbitration cabal
  15. Liaise with the cabal?
  16. Email Loop
  17. The usual crowd
  18. The 90/10 rule
  19. Nazi Bases In Antarctica
  20. msnbc