Reading around a bit in this Conservapedia again a few things struck me:

- The excessive amount of atrocious spelling errors in it. As a non-native speaker of English I believe I write more correct English (both grammar-wise and with regard to spelling) as the typical author of a Conservapedia entry…

- in fact many entries make the impression of being written by 12-year olds, with very simplistic wording. But maybe that is more a matter of the level of the people they are catering for….

- The complete and frankly quite bewildering ignorance of everything non-American with regard to (contemporary) politics. You’ll find entries for (a selection of - apparently focussing mainly on Republicans) the American presidents, and the main current US antagonists like Castro, Chavez.
But political leaders of world status like Putin, Blair, Chirac: there are no entries for them to be found. Margaret Thatcher does have an entry, and that is probably because she is an icon (and indeed treated as such in Conservapedia) of this world’s conservatives.

Razela - 27 February 2007 10:33 PM

I think it’s part real part hoax.  Obviously it all depends on who’s editing it.

Yes, whether or not it’s a hoax would depend on who’s writing each part.  There are no doubt some devout Conservatives who are adding entries with all seriousness.  Then there are probably some devout Conservatives who have a sense of humour (I sure hope that there are some of those in existence, at least!) and plenty of non-Conservatives who are adding in bits as jokes.

I’m with Acci.  I think it’s a little bit of everything.  It was probably started as a real website because, come on, we all know wikipedia has a well known liberal bias

.  Then, I bet there are a ton of people that find the idea of conservapedia funny and just tweak the articles as a joke.

Razela - 02 March 2007 06:14 AM

I’m with Acci.

Hurrah, I have an acolyte!  What are you good for, though?

LaMa - 01 March 2007 10:57 PM

...in fact many entries make the impression of being written by 12-year olds, with very simplistic wording. But maybe that is more a matter of the level of the people they are catering for….

Yes, because we all know if you are conservative you couldn’t possible be intelligent, and would need things dumbed down for you to understand.
On the other side, it could have been written at the level of those creating the hoax…

N E O - 02 March 2007 03:52 PM

LaMa - 01 March 2007 10:57 PM

...in fact many entries make the impression of being written by 12-year olds, with very simplistic wording. But maybe that is more a matter of the level of the people they are catering for….

Yes, because we all know if you are conservative you couldn’t possible be intelligent, and would need things dumbed down for you to understand.

That, I did not say. I was talking about the people really thinking there is a need for this kind of a Wiki, subscribing to the kind of content and object it has. That will not be each Conservative. Thank God.

N E O - 02 March 2007 03:52 PM

LaMa - 01 March 2007 10:57 PM

...in fact many entries make the impression of being written by 12-year olds, with very simplistic wording. But maybe that is more a matter of the level of the people they are catering for….

Yes, because we all know if you are conservative you couldn’t possible be intelligent, and would need things dumbed down for you to understand.
On the other side, it could have been written at the level of those creating the hoax…

I don’t think that’s what he meant neo.  To me it seems like it’s not catering to the conservatives per se, but the crazy weird super right wing conservatives that tend to disregard reality.  These people do seem to not always be the brightest (as are most crazy people).  I would think that most normal conservatives are probably happy with wikipedia.

Ok, clarification noted and accepted.

HEY!!

if you guys are likin that stuff there, i know an even beter wikipedia parody!
the UNCYCLOEDIA!!!

woot!

Yes, that one is common around here.

I especialy like their item on Evolution