Forum:We've got competition
Oh...my...God! We've got some serious competition. By "serious" I mean that they don't think it's parody. No, not ED. Not Wikiality. I'm talking about Conservapedia. I thought that The Creation Wiki was bad; this is somehow worse. Check out the articles on such topics as:
- ACLU which, instead of defending free speech and the "little guy", apparently spends its time ignoring Christians. Also they're both anti-American and communists. A tough combination indeed.
- Homosexuality which starts out with two OT passages calling it "abomination" and advocating the murder of those pesky abominations, then moves on to the NT passages that say they won't go to heaven (which means an eternity of firey burning for rubbing their no-no places on the wrong people's no-no places).
- Creationism which fails to even hint at creation myths other than those of Genesis.
- Dinosaur complete with references from the Bible.
- Jesus is remarkably short and innocuous.
- Judaism the basis of several religion and, from what I hear, one in it's own right...gets a stub.
- Sikhism, meanwhile, isn't mentioned at all.
- Atheism appears oddly, um, normal. Which scares me a bit. I'm used to reading about how godlessness leads to the gulag, abortion and violence in video games. Oh, well, I'm sure they'll mention those eventually.
- Islam which has some good points...but is descended from pagan beliefs.
- Deism which wastes several paragraphs specifically mentioning that Jefferson was a Christian and was not deist. It oddly fails to mention the Jefferson bible, which the Thomas Jefferson page does, though that particular page is missing Sally Hemings. Sally has no page of her own. Pity.
- Jews three whole sentences...one of which is on their disbelief that JC was the messiah.
- Secular humanism...nil. Humanism...one friggin' line.
- and lastly, the hilarious Examples of Bias in Wikipedia which, sadly, wouldn't pass VFH here as it's too listy and has no pictures. Now, I'm no fan of Wikipedia, as it's too hung up on bureaucratic nonsense like "evidence", "references" and something called "facts", but Conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Fox News.
I could go on, but I think we've found our foil. A Yang for our also Yang (Wikipedia's still Yin. On that my stance is solid like warm oatmeal).
One positive: there are a few editors there who are at least attempting to provide balance, although their contribution seems to be mostly on talkpages as a disturbing number of pages appear to be locked (at least for IPs, I'm not going to bother registering to find out if non-IPs can actually edit anything. That would take time away from here and would, therefore, be silly).
Another positive: we satirize everyone. Some better and more thoroughly than others, but no one and nothing is safe from the bleary-eye of the Uncyc contributor. Even if it's a no one or a nothing that doesn't exist.
I'd be laughing much harder if it didn't scare the hell out of me that we're in the year two-thousand and something and there are still people who...hey, my blood pressure has shot up...and when did "conservative" become "American Evangelical Protestant with a dash of Biblical literalist", anyway?
Lastly, even if no one ever reads this it was worth typing because I had to tell someone. At this point, everyone I know in the real world thinks that I'm quite mad (what with the talking like a suburban homeboy in July, a pulp detective in December and a recent immigrant from 1950's Ukraine at the end of February and all). They just pat me on the head and hand me a lolli (which, now that I think about it is better than here, as here I get no candy).--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 10:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think they'd threaten legal action if we... oh, sorry. --officer designate
Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 10:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC) - Examples of Bias on Wikipedia is pretty funny. Point 7 has nothing to do with Christianity at all. Point 10 is funny because they think they are a real encyclopedia. Point 13 infers that Conservapedia has educational value. Point 24 onwards are just random comments that support their bias view that Wilkipedia is bias. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 11:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think point 7 means "foreigners are foreign. This means that they must be unAmerican and quite possibly socialists. If they were pro-american and conservatives, by G_d, they'd be Americans by now".
- Point 2 is sticky also, especially given the stubby status of their own Renaissance page. If they mean that the church funded art, music and architecture, they're taking credit for the actions of RCs.
- Point 3 is bizarre. That's like pointing out that the percentage of scientists who are atheists is disproportionate to the American average, so scientists must be biased. Oh, wait.
- Point 4 is odd, as their own page on abortion focuses entirely on the potential side-effects.
- Point 11 is fucked (yes, I swore. I don't do it that often, but "fucked" just fits), as their Evolution page is locked down tight.
- Point 17 and 19 show that since Wikipedia has gaps, the not-gaps must be wrong. I think that's what it means. God is not the only one who's ineffable. Of course this means that the Conservapedia is even more wronger, as it has gaps that you could drive a truck through.
- Point 18 I saw a creationist anti-evolutionist timeline once, that was like the Darwinian one (with Apeguy on the left, sortof apeguy to his right, etc, then man) but it had only the frauds and mistakes. 18 is just the old anti-evolutionist strawman of "this was a fraud, therefore the rest is, too", which, as you well know, makes a literal interpretation of Gen1&2 true by default. Also, if I show that the piece of fruit that I am now eating is not an apple it must, therefore, be an orange. It's just that simple. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 12:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just went to wikipedia and corrected point 9. Easy.---Asteroid B612
(aka Rataube) - Ñ 14:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hurray for the wiki! Does everybody have the same username on Uncyc and Wikipedia? Also, I apologize for accusing them of creating strawmen, then adding some of my own in my comments.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 14:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think something should be done about this. LET'S GO VANDALIZE!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UNKNOWNFILE (talk • contribs)
- Let's not. I am wondering, however, how long some of our better conservative satires would last there (George W. Bush, anyone?). Are they CC, or is that too commie?--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There's a thing on the AV club website about this. I have to say, having seen a video of Bill O'Reilly for the first time recently (does he actually exist? I'm finding it hard to grasp that there is someone that obnoxious living in the real world) and now this, my fundamental belief in everyone having at least some common sense is being sorely tested. --Sir Jam 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did a private investigation of some of this and I found Hitler's article praises him as a "great orator." --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 18:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- You mean this? It looks right on to me. He was the Beatles of his time. Seriously! Women used to have orgasms while listening to his speeches. Of course, German is the language of love. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- O'reilly used to be a talking head on Inside Edition. At the time it specialized in ambush interviews, ambulance chasing, and leering closing segments on bikinis. Then the show shifted from one crap format to another or he got fired, and he somehow discovered that there's a whole group of people who think that self-righteous assholes are worth listening to. So he switched to that. Now he's making money telling people just how right his side is, and how wrong the other is. Mostly with biased interviews (he'll talk with a "lefty" and a "righty", but his questions and pacing will simply be to put the "lefty" at a disadvantage). Also he plays fast and loose with facts; he used to say he'd won two Peabodys while on Hard Copy, when really he won a stuffed monkey at the carnival once. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooh! I found another one. The Stalin page has, at the end of a list of his attrocities that he "...forced women to work in factories just like men.". Damn Stalin and his ignoring of accepted societal roles for women! Everytime I find one good bit, I stumble across nuttery right after. /me shakes head. This would be fun if it wasn't so depressing...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Just f'ed up my addition to Conservapedia
Got all excited when I saw the Examples of Bias article at Conservapedia and posted an item on it. My item needs either to be deleted immediately, or the title put in proper case and linked to The One True item on Conservapedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axelray (talk • contribs)
The math on number 3 is bullshit. If the numbers are even right in teh first place, then the real disproportion is about 15% (in favor of liberals of course), not 600% as the editors judged. But the whole website reads rather like an Uncyclopedia parody anyways, so it's only natural to expect mathematical fuckups, particulary with such a bias. --Señor DiZtheGreat 
CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 18:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- We don't produce mathematical fuckups. 227% of Uncyc users agree. --officer designate Lugiatm MUN NS CM ZM WH 19:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- This point is part of what almost makes me think this page is a parody, where they are being complete hypocrites by using bias to show that Wikipedia is biased. I mean, seriously, point 3 doesn't even mention that Liberal and Conservative were not the only choices on the poll, but also Moderate and I HATE JESUS! Naturally, most liberals would have chosen the latter.
Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 11:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- This point is part of what almost makes me think this page is a parody, where they are being complete hypocrites by using bias to show that Wikipedia is biased. I mean, seriously, point 3 doesn't even mention that Liberal and Conservative were not the only choices on the poll, but also Moderate and I HATE JESUS! Naturally, most liberals would have chosen the latter.
Vote
You are not entitled to view results of this poll.
- What are we voting on? --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 19:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does it matter? /me runs outside with placard denouncing people who vote differently than me as "unpatriotic, unamerican, and unsomethingelse".--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ignore them
Just because a handful of American "conservatives" (in the way they understand the word) have learned how to use the internets is no reason to be alarmed. Ultimately, the intolerant nature of their socio-religio-political stance will result in the admins of their site banning everyone who has a different viewpoint than themselves, making for a very small user base. Most likely, they have no interest in filling their wiki with actual content, and are more concerned with presenting the xenophobic, Evangelical (Baptist) American side of controversial subjects. This is why their article on Jews is a worthless stub; they aren't sure how to present the facts with an appropriately "conservative" twist. Essentially, they are trying to create something on the scale of Wikipedia (or even Uncyclopedia) with less than half the number of people, which is probably not possible.
Consider this: if they are trying to present a "conservative" viewpoint, then how will they handle articles that are religiously and politically neutral? I can see it now... "Myst is a computer game originally developed by Rand and Robyn Miller, two very artistic people, which means they are probably gay or foreign..."
In the words of Ze Frank, they are a bunch of hard-chargers, with not enough awesome to go around. They'll struggle, then burn themselves out. --
01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but...the failure of their wiki to be a huge success (after they've pushed out those not sufficiently righteous to contribute) will just prove to them how intolerant the rest of us are (by completely locking most "hot-button" issues and continuing to preach to the choir, and thus far, poorly, for their own case, they're already halfway there). Yes, my head burned up a bit typing that, but remember the persecution complex that asshats like Falwell help to foster. I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed their Jews article. It's probably the least offensive three contiguous sentences about them that have ever come from the evangelical right (they didn't even mention once that Jews killed Jesus. That's their favourite term. They didn't even allude to the fact that, according to their interpretation of that book their always quoting, two thirds of them have to die before JC will come back to check His mail).
- Also, they've given themselves an out for pop-culture. They say it's uncyclopedic. Hey, that's us! They are our Yin after all. Small world...--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I recall a quote from King of the Hill, "Can't you see that your Christian rock isn't making Christianity any better? It's just making rock music worse..." This is my response to your claim they can point to their inferior wiki as a sign they're with the times. We're actually more conservative than them, in all probability, just not in the way they think of it (just that we have no particular "crusade" we're going on, we're just trying to be entertaining to the masses offending as few people as possible [or perhaps as many...same difference.].).--<<
>> 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- "...we're just trying to be entertaining to the masses...". Really? Mostly I've been writing stuff about things that make me angry or things that makes me laugh. That some of it appears to resonate with others is appreciated but entirely accidental.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, comrade Modusoperanski, you are not have been introduced to art of mass-produced humor? Using own personal experience and insight is old-fashioned, much more popular these days to be making "funny" jokes based on memes and other internet asshattery! --
20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're just trying to get me to start talking like that again. It's not going to work. Are the ears of you filled with hearing of me? Your plan for evil will not be working on me! (Damnit!) --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, comrade Modusoperanski, you are not have been introduced to art of mass-produced humor? Using own personal experience and insight is old-fashioned, much more popular these days to be making "funny" jokes based on memes and other internet asshattery! --
- "...we're just trying to be entertaining to the masses...". Really? Mostly I've been writing stuff about things that make me angry or things that makes me laugh. That some of it appears to resonate with others is appreciated but entirely accidental.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I recall a quote from King of the Hill, "Can't you see that your Christian rock isn't making Christianity any better? It's just making rock music worse..." This is my response to your claim they can point to their inferior wiki as a sign they're with the times. We're actually more conservative than them, in all probability, just not in the way they think of it (just that we have no particular "crusade" we're going on, we're just trying to be entertaining to the masses offending as few people as possible [or perhaps as many...same difference.].).--<<
- What--Nytrospawn 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Steal their articles where appropriate
| Vote: Ones that are better than the current versions on Uncyc |
Score: -2 |
| Nomination: | Come on, you know this was coming... --Ж WHEEEEE! 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC) |
| For Votes: 1 |
|
| Against Votes: 3 |
|
| Comments |
|
Examples of Bias in Conservapedia
Hey, I just created User:Cs1987/Examples of Bias in Conservapedia. I welcome people to edit it while it is in my namespace. 
Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Conservapedia fodder for good stories
I read an article on them on Ars Technica on Monday. And created this UnNews article: UnNews:Uncyclopedia VP seeks to meet Conservapedia challenge with a link to Ars story.
I don't think we should touch or copy their cruft (lovely word that). However I do think we should mock the ever loving shit out of them. As much as the Colbert Report mocks O'Reilly. If we can be half as funny as Colbert.. that would be awesome! --Kenvalyi 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid to touch their cruft. They probably offer cookies and a place to sign up. This scares the willies out of me. Tell them I'm not home. How did they find out where I lived? Oh. I'm just being paranoid? Anyway, I'm not home. Permanently. Tell them to go away. Bullies. I could tell you stories....--be very afraid 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if I know anything about crazy out-of-hand vendettas (which I do), then I think that they're asking for a feud. I say a bunch of us go to one of their talk pages and see if they want to start a feud. That's how all good feuds start. Then the ball's in their court. Benson 20:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently that Wiki was created by the son of the evil sorceress...
Phyllis Schlafly. It's designed for people who don't live with open minds. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the plus side, with six kids there's a chance that, unlike Andrew Schlafly, some of her offspring are not completely insane. Also Phyllis Schlafly is easily the most erotic name I've heard all day. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. I heard some of her other kids disowned her. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)