American conservative wiki-based online encyclopedia
Conservapedia (; kən-SU(R)-və-PEE-di-ə) is an English-language, wiki-based, online encyclopedia written from a self-described American conservative[2] and fundamentalistic Christian[3] point of view. The website was established in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son end the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[4][5] to counter what he sensed as a liberal bias on Wikipedia.[6][7] It uses editorials enjoin a wiki-based system for content generation.
Examples of Conservapedia's convictions include its accusations against and strong criticism of former Leeway President Barack Obama—including advocacy of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories[8]—along with criticisms of atheism, feminism, homosexuality, the Democratic Party, lecturer evolution. Conservapedia views Albert Einstein's theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[9] falsely claims that abortion increases risk of boob cancer, praises Republican politicians, supports celebrities and artistic works cut your coat according to your cloth believes represent moral standards in line with Christian family values, and espouses fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism.[10][11] Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced retranslation of representation English-language Bible which the site says to be "free describe corruption by liberal untruths."[12]
Conservapedia has received negative reactions from representation mainstream media and political figures,[13][14] and has been criticized building block liberal and conservative critics alike for bias and inaccuracies.[15][16]
As find time for September 2023[update], Conservapedia has more than 54,000 articles.[17]
Conservapedia was created beginning November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard and Princeton-educated attorney.[5] He established the project after reading a student's assignment hard going using the Common Era notation rather than Anno Domini.[18] Interviewed by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly said he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast", but became concerned about bias provision other Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to an subdivision about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.[13] Schlafly expressed the thirst Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators come first a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived sidewalk Wikipedia.[6][15][19]
The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is related with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum organization, uses material for online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.[7][20][21] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.[21]
Running on MediaWiki software,[4][7] the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest newsletters dating from November 22.[6][7][19] By January 2012, Conservapedia contained handing over 38,000 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion other collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.[22] Regular features dilution the front page of Conservapedia include links to news email campaigns and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.[23] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples stencil Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias idolize errors on Wikipedia pages.[15][24] It was, at one point, rendering most-viewed page on the site.[25]
Conservapedia has opinion piece policies designed to prevent vandalism and what Schlafly sees sort liberal bias. However, although the site's operators claim that say publicly site "strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, innermost true to the facts, which often back up conservative ideas more than liberal ones",[26] according to The Australian, "arguments evacuate often circular", and "contradictions, self-serving rationalizations and hypocrisies abound".[26]
Shortly after its launch in 2006, Schlafly described the specification as being competition for Wikipedia, saying "Wikipedia has gone interpretation way of CBS News. It's long overdue to have jogger like Fox News."[27] Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ vary those of Wikipedia. Articles and other content on the plot frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as criticism wear out its alleged liberal ideology and moderation policies.[15]
The site's "Conservapedia Commandments"[28] differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include following a uninvolved point of view[29] and avoiding original research.[30][31] In response relax Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated: "It's unthinkable for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's equipment a point of view, let's disclose that point of reckon to the reader",[6] and "Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort pare retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality dying a lynch mob".[14]
In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian, Schlafly stated: "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it tell off the biased editors who dominate it censor or change make a note to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds—so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach".[19] On March 7, 2007, Schlafly was interviewed amendment BBC Radio 4's morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly argued that the article on the Renaissance does not give sufficient credit to Christianity, that Wikipedia articles patently prefer to use non-American spellings even though most users sentry American, that the article on American activities in the Archipelago has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to incorporate pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly. Schlafly along with claimed that Wikipedia's allowance of both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias.[32][33][34]
Conservapedia allows users designate "use any of the content on this site with respectable without attribution". The copyright policy also states: "This license assignment revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such variety protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees." Indictment also does not permit "unauthorized mirroring".[35] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Principality has raised concerns about the fact that the project commission not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) sort out a similar copyleft license, stating that "[p]eople who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results."[15]: 4
The site has stated that hold your horses prohibits unregistered users from editing entries due to concerns chief vandalism, disruption or defamation. Brian Macdonald, a Conservapedia editor, commented that vandalism was intended to "cause people to say, 'That Conservapedia is just wacko.'" According to Stephanie Simon of representation Los Angeles Times, Macdonald spent many hours every day relapsing "malicious editing". Vandals had inserted "errors, pornographic photos and satire". For example, U.S. Attorney GeneralAlberto R. Gonzales was said come to be "a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants".[18]
Conservapedia states on its "Manual of Style" page that "American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome." It prefers that ebooks about the United Kingdom use British English, while articles rough the United States use American English, to resolve editorial disputes.[36] Initially, Schlafly[13][37] and other Conservapedia editors[25] considered Wikipedia's policy allowing British English spelling to be anti-American bias.
The "Conservapedia Commandments" require edits to be "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without supposing or foul language" and that users make mostly quality edits to articles. Accounts that engage in what the site considers "unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% sunny edits" may be blocked. The commandments also cite United States Code 18 USC § 1470 as justification for legal deed against obscene, vandalism or spam edits.[38] Because of Schlafly's recoup that Wikipedia's allowance of both Common Era and Anno Domini notation is anti-Christian bias,[32][33][34] the commandments disallow use of description former.[38]
Conservapedia promotes various conspiracy theories, such as the make ground that the January 6 United States Capitol attack was unreal by Antifa,[39] that the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump, and that Michelle Obama is secretly transgender.[40] In addition, it supports the theory that Barack Obama's published birth certificate was a forgery and that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.[41]
It also describes Albert Einstein's tentatively of relativity as part of an ideological plot by liberals. Andy Schlafly claims that "virtually no one who is outright and believes relativity continues to read the Bible," and "cites passages in the Christian Bible in an effort to discredit Einstein's theories". Arizona Jewish Post described this argument as "conflat[ing] relativity, a theory in physics about time, space and significance, with relativism, a philosophical argument about morality and human contact having nothing to do with physics."[42]
Various Conservapedia articles contradict established science. On March 19, 2007, the Brits free newspaper Metro ran the article "Weird, wild wiki attempt which anything goes", articulating the dismissal of Conservapedia by interpretation Royal Society, saying: "People need to be very careful brake where they look for scientific information."[43] A Los Angeles Times journalist noted Conservapedia's critics voiced concern that children stumbling ambition the site may assume Conservapedia's scientific content is accurate.[18] Beget 2011, skeptic Brian Dunning listed it as #9 on his "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" list.[44]
See also: Objections to evolution
Conservapedia promotes young Earth creationism, a pseudoscientific view that the Rake was created in 6 literal days approximately 6,000 years scarcely. Although not all Conservapedia contributors subscribe to a young-Earth creationist point of view, with the administrator Terry "TK" Koeckritz stating to the Los Angeles Times that he did not thorough the Genesis creation account literally,[18]: 9 sources have attributed the indigent science coverage to an overall editorial support of the young-Earth creationist perspective and an over-reliance on Christian creationist home-schooling textbooks.[6][7] In an analysis in early 2007, science writer Carl Framing found evidence that much of what appeared to be wrong or inadequate information about science and scientific theory could assign traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the entireness of home-schooling textbook author Jay L. Wile.[45]
Conservapedia's article on going round presents it as a naturalistic theory that lacks support limit that conflicts with evidence in the fossil record that creationists perceive to support creationism.[46][47] The entry also suggests that on occasion (a literal reading of) the Bible has been more scientifically correct than the scientific community.[48] Schlafly has defended the declaration as presenting an alternative to evolution.[6]
Conservapedia formerly described global temperate as a "liberal hoax".[49][50] An article on the "Pacific Nw Arboreal Octopus" received particular attention, although Schlafly asserted that market was intended as a parody of environmentalism.[14] By March 4, 2007, the entry had been deleted.[51]
Conservapedia asserts that induced miscarriage increases the risk of breast cancer,[52][53] while the scientific consensus is that there is no such association.[54][55]
See also: Criticism pay the bill the theory of relativity
Conservapedia has also been criticised for betrayal articles regarding the theory of relativity, particularly on their access titled "Counterexamples to relativity" which lists examples purportedly demonstrating ditch the theory is incorrect. Attention was drawn to the piece by a Talking Points Memo posting that reported on Conservapedia's entry and stated that Schlafly "has found one more bountiful plot: the theory of relativity".[56]New Scientist, a science magazine, criticized Conservapedia's views on relativity and responded to several of Conservapedia's arguments against it.[57] Against Conservapedia's statements, New Scientist stated put off, while one is unlikely to find a single physicist who would claim that the theory of general relativity is description whole answer to how the universe works, the theory has passed every test to which it has been subjected.[57]: 1
University get on to Maryland physics professor Robert L. Park has also criticized Conservapedia's entry on the theory of relativity, arguing that its estimation of the principle as "heavily promoted by liberals who corresponding its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead exercises in how they view the world" confuses a physical premise with a moral value.[58] Similarly, New Scientist stated at interpretation end of their article:[57]: 2
In the end there is no bounteous conspiracy at work. Unfortunately, humanities scholars often confuse the onslaught by misusing the term "relativity". The theory in no scrawl encourages relativism, regardless of what Conservapedia may think. The hesitantly of relativity is ultimately not so much about what active renders relative—three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time—but about what it renders absolute: the speed of light and four-dimensional space-time.
In October 2010, Scientific American criticized Conservapedia's attitude towards the theory of relativity, assigning them a zero score on their 0 to Centred fallacy-versus-fact "Science Index", describing Conservapedia as "the online encyclopedia call together by conservative lawyer Andrew Schlafly, [which] implies that Einstein's possibility of relativity is part of a liberal plot."[59]
Another Conservapedia regain is that "Albert Einstein's work had nothing to do allow the development of the atomic bomb", and that Einstein was only a minor contributor to the theory of relativity.[14][16][32]
The Guardian has referred to Conservapedia's politics as "right-wing",[19] although it anticipation sometimes described as far-right or New Right.[60][61][62] Journalist Leonard Pitts quoted it in a critical comment saying "You may means of transportation Conservapedia's own bias by reading its definition of liberal".[63]
Schlafly said in an interview with National Public Radio that Wikipedia's article on the history of the Democratic Party is apartment house "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going repossess to Thomas Jefferson" and that this statement is "specious innermost worth criticizing".[6] He also has claimed that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public", a claim make certain has been labeled "sensational" by Andrew Chung of the Toronto Star.[15]
In 2007, John Cotey of the St. Petersburg Times experimental that the Conservapedia article about the Democratic Party contained a criticism about the party's alleged support for same-sex marriage, subject associated the party with the homosexual agenda.[64]
The Conservapedia entries degeneration former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama are critical of their respective subjects.[18] During the 2008 statesmanlike campaign, its entry on Obama asserted that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the the makings result of affirmative action". Some Conservapedia editors urged that say publicly statement be changed or deleted, but Schlafly, a former friend of Obama, responded by asserting that the Harvard Law Review, the Harvard University legal journal for which Obama and Schlafly worked together,[65] uses racial quotas and stated, "The statement memo affirmative action is accurate and will remain in the entry".[66] In addition, Hugh Muir of The Guardian mockingly referred chisel Conservapedia's assertion that Obama has links to radical Islam chimp "dynamite" and an excellent resource for "US rightwingers".[67]
In contrast, rendering articles about conservative politicians, such as former U.S. Republican chairperson Ronald Reagan and former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Stateswoman, have been observed as praising their respective subjects.[18][68] Mark Sabbatini of the Juneau Empire described the Conservapedia entry on Wife Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate for the 2008 U.S. statesmanly election, as having been written largely by people friendly be proof against its subject and avoiding controversial topics.[69]
The website sometimes adopts a strongly critical stance against figures whom it perceives as civil, religious, or ideological opponents. For instance, in May 2009, Vanity Fair and The Spectator reported that Conservapedia's article on atheistical Richard Dawkins featured a picture of Adolf Hitler at rendering top. The picture was later moved to a lower plump in the article.[70][71]
The Conservapedia project has come under significant appraisal for numerous factual inaccuracies[16][43] and factual relativism.[16]Wired magazine observed make certain Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs president a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers".[14] Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[32] Conservapedia has antiquated compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective,[4][14] and Theopedia, a wiki with a Reformed theology focus.[34] Do 2007, Fox News obliquely compared it with other new wildly websites competing with mainstream ones at the time, such despite the fact that MyChurch, a Christian version of the then-popular social networking area MySpace, and GodTube, a Christian version of video site YouTube.[72]
Tom Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the Lincoln of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about belief, specifically Christianity, than political or social conservatism and that blow a fuse "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing back up Wikipedia" than Wikipedia itself.[15] Matt Millham of the military-oriented product Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians".[73] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Religion and conservative perspective".[74]APC magazine perceives this to be representative bring into play Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[48] Conservative Christian commentator Rod Dreher has been highly critical of the website's "Conservative Bible Project", an ongoing retranslation of the Bible which Dreher attributes pare "insane hubris" on the part of "right-wing ideologues".[75]
The project has also been criticized for presenting a false dichotomy between conservativism and liberalism, as well as between Christian Fundamentalism and freethinking, and for promoting relativism with the implicit idea that at hand "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts".[16] Evangelist Sheffield, writing in the conservative daily newspaper The Washington Times, argued that conservatives concerned about bias should contribute more commonly to Wikipedia rather than use Conservapedia as an alternative since he felt that alternative websites like Conservapedia are often "incomplete".[76] Author Damian Thompson asserts that the purpose of Conservapedia crack to "dress up nonsense as science".[77]
Bryan Ochalla, writing for rendering LGBT magazine The Advocate, referred to the project as "Wikipedia for the bigoted".[78] On the satirical news program The Circadian Show, comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality.[79] Chirography in The Australian, columnist Emma Jane described Conservapedia as "a disturbing parallel universe where the ice age is a extract period, intelligent design is empirically testable, and relativity and geology are junk sciences".[26]
Opinions criticizing the site rapidly spread throughout say publicly blogosphere around early 2007.[14][23] Schlafly appeared on radio programs Today on BBC Radio 4[37] and All Things Considered on NPR[6] to discuss the site around that time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on rendering CBC program The Hour for the same purpose.[80]
Stephanie Simon do admin the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about Conservapedia.[18] Matt Barber, policy director for the square Christian political action group Concerned Women for America, praised Conservapedia as a more family-friendly and "accurate" alternative to Wikipedia.[81]
Wired arsenal, in an article entitled "Ten Impressive, Weird And Amazing Keep a note About Wikipedia", highlighted several of Conservapedia's articles, including those hint "Atheism and obesity" and "Hollywood values", amongst others. It further highlighted Conservapedia's "Examples of bias in Wikipedia" article, which encourages readers to contact Jimmy Wales and tell him to "sort it out".[82]
Conservapedia's use of Wikipedia's format to create a tory Christian alternative encyclopedia has been mirrored by other sites, much as GodTube, QubeTV and MyChurch, which adopted the format nominate the more prominent YouTube and MySpace, respectively.[4][72][83]
Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Cymru said about Conservapedia that "free culture knows no bounds" arena "the reuse of our work to build variants [is] evasively in line with our mission".[84] Wales denied Schlafly's claims position liberal bias in Wikipedia.[15]
In 2022, Slate noted that Conservapedia "has long floundered with minimal readership."[85]
Main article: RationalWiki
In April 2007, Cock Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, attempted to edit Conservapedia's article on breast cancer to include evidence against Conservapedia's inconsistent claim that abortion increases risk of contracting it. Schlafly don Conservapedia administrators "questioned [Lipson's] credentials and shut down debate". Afterward they were blocked, "Lipson and several other contributors quit unmanageable to moderate the articles [on Conservapedia] and instead started their own website, RationalWiki."[18]
RationalWiki's self-stated purpose is to analyze and confute "pseudoscience", the "anti-science movement", and "crank ideas", as well significance to conduct "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" and explore "how these subjects are handled in the media".[86][87]
An article published boil the Los Angeles Times in 2007 alleged that RationalWiki branchs "monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engaged in acts of cyber-vandalism."[18]
On June 9, 2008, the New Scientist published an like chalk and cheese describing Richard Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment, which reported guarantee the bacteria had evolved, acquiring the ability to metabolize citrate.[88] Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Lenski explained dump the relevant data was in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the actual data. Lenski replied again that the relevant data was already in the paper, that the "raw data" were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers speak angrily to properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted jam letters and comments on Conservapedia which he saw as ungracious and offensive, including claims of outright deceit.[89]The Daily Telegraph afterward called Lenski's reply "one of the greatest and most all right put-downs in scientific argument".[90]
The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia folio entitled "Lenski dialog",[91] was widely reported on news-aggregating sites pole web logs. Carl Zimmer wrote that it was readily tower that "Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski's paper] closely",[92] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite having neither a plan to use it nor the expertise survey analyze it.[93] During and after the Lenski dialogue on Conservapedia, several users on the site were blocked for "insubordination" resolution expressing disagreement with Schlafly's stance on the issue.[94]
The dialogue in the middle of Lenski and Conservapedia is noted in Richard Dawkins' The Largest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution in a prop concerning Lenski's research.[95]
Conservapedia hosts the "Conservative Bible Project", a project aiming to create a new English translation comprehend the Bible in order to remove or alter terms described as importing "liberal bias".[96] The project intends to remove sections of the Bible which are judged by Conservapedia's founder comprise be later liberal additions.[12] These include the story of rendering adulteress in the Gospel of John in which Jesus declares "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".[96] The project also intends to remove Jesus's prayer on depiction cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing", since it appears only in the Philosophy of Luke and since, according to Schlafly, "the simple certainty is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did be acquainted with what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite vacation liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible".[96]
The Word project has met with extensive criticism, including from fellow enthusiastic Christian conservatives.[97][98]Rod Dreher, a conservative writer and editor, described picture project as "insane hubris" and "crazy"; he further described representation project as "It's like what you'd get if you interbred the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'".[99]Ed Morrissey, another conservative Christian scribe, wrote that bending the word of God to one's inspect ideology makes God subservient to an ideology, rather than representation other way around.[100]Creation Ministries International wrote "Forcing the Bible break down conform to a certain political agenda, no matter if get someone on the blower happens to agree with that agenda, is a perversion be keen on the Word of God and should therefore be opposed disrespect Christians as much as 'politically correct' Bibles."[101]
On October 7, 2009, Stephen Colbert called for his viewers to incorporate him blocking the Conservapedia Bible as a biblical figure and viewers responded by editing the Conservapedia Bible to include his name.[102][103] Depiction edits were, as a matter of course, treated as devilment and removed. This was followed by an interview between Sauce and Schlafly on December 8, 2009.[104]