From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Conservapedia is a wiki project to construct an encyclopedia whose articles are supportive of conservative Christianity, social conservatism and American nationalism. The project was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative commentator Phyllis Schlafly, in response to an alleged anti-Christian and anti-American bias on Wikipedia. The site was originally created as a project for homeschooled children, with many of its entries being created by teenagers as part of a school assignment.[1] Conservapedia and Wikipedia Andrew Schlafly has stated that the project's goal is to become an educational source for teachers free of the alleged liberal, anti-Christian and anti-American bias of Wikipedia.[1] Conservapedia claims there is an institutional aversion on Wikipedia to the use of Christian scripture and doctrine as a reliable source. Topics relating to natural phenomena, morality, religion, politics and American history have been singled out for particular criticism.[2] Examples include the use of the CE/BCE notation in place of the Christ-centric AD/BC, and allowing evolution to be defined as fact in contradiction of the Christian creation story. [2] Allegations of an anti-American bias include the allowing of the use of British and Commonwealth spellings such as labour and theatre.[3][4]. In an interview with The Guardian newspaper, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds - so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."[1] [edit] Criticism and vandalism The project has come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies and allegations of a bias of its own. Widely disseminated examples of Conservapedia articles that contradict the scientific consensus include the claims that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark, that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb", and that gravity and evolution are theories that remain unproven.[5] [6][7] An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention, with it being pointed as a nonsense entry that was able to slip under the radar. However, Andrew Schlafly has asserted that the page was meant as a parody of environmentalism and he intends to keep it up.[8][9] However, as of 4 March, the entry has been deleted.[9] Other offending articles have since been revised to include fewer statements of the kind that have brought derision from the blogosphere.[citation needed] There is evidence that people who object to Conservapedia's stated conservative Christian mission have been creating deliberate parody entries in an attempt to ridicule the widespread use of Christian scripture as a source for Conservapedia articles.[3] Critics, including the conservative writer Andrew Sullivan and the conservative blogger Jon Swift, as well as the science writer Carl Zimmer and others, have criticized and mocked the website for factual inaccuracy, extremism, hypocrisy, bias, and ignoring the scientific consensus on subjects such as the Big Bang and evolution in favor of biblical exegesis.[8][10][11] It has also been suggested that Conservapedia and its initial contributors display political bias in articles. The article on the United States Democratic Party has been criticized for including the seemingly pejorative sentence, "Rightwing critics claim, however, that the Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism, treasonous anti-Americanism, and contempt for America's founding principles such as freedom of religion."[1] The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting the notion that there are "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts."[12] Conservapedia has also been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creation science perspective.[8]. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project.[13] "Free culture knows no bounds," he said. "We welcome the reuse of our work to build variants."[1] Currently (as of 4 March, 2007) it is not possible to edit an article on Conservapedia without logging in as a registered member, but the registration of new accounts is disabled.
top of page