The Guild of Mute Assasins

Just before i get into the article - no boaby conservipedia is not some fettish for Maggie Thatcher.

Just found an article about it on the guardian... its a clone of wikipedia, but it aims to remove the liberal and anti-christian bias of wikipedia.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page


Great Article : http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur
In this they have a section by the creationists countering scientific evidence for dinosaurs with the word of the bible. Its just brilliant. p.s. the entry contains almost no factual inforamtion about dinosaurs.

Compare to Wikipedia's entry on Dino's : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

So i think we should initiate a game.... like google wacking ( oh i loved dave gormans show, if you've not seen it do watch it)

Try to find the most ridiculous entry made on conservipedia, based on :

1) Lack of actual facts
2) Most random attempts to explain things by creationism
3) It just makes me laugh
Optional - 4) Comparison between wiki and conservi

I'm game for that - most influential men in history:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Most_influential

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100:_A ... in_History


I'll think of something better, just thought this gave a great example of the conservapedia bias :wink:

Ah, knew there was a link I meant to post, if only to listen to Corm's brain explode across the city.

Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea

http://www.conservapedia.com/Sea

LOL

Oh i liked your efforts so far... the greatest people one was so bias..

And the sea wow, conservipedia taught me a whole lot with that article

Il try and find some time tonight to find some of my own.

Hav: "Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"

Pinky: "Well, gee, Hav, I think so, but where are you going to get fishnet stockings at this time of night?"

Hav: "Quiet, or I will be forced to hurt you. No, I am speaking of a hotmail account..."

*ducks*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_W._Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theravada

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theravada

Oh my god they are breeding !!

Here is what creationwiki.org has to say about Dinosaurs

There is much evidence that dinosaurs existed very recently and coexisted with mankind. Prehistoric cave paintings and carvings have been found illustrating first-hand knowledge of these creatures by early humans.[1][2][3] Dinosaur tracks have been found alongside human tracks.[4] Dinosaur bones have also been found that are unfossilized with soft tissues still present indicating recent burial.

There are graphic descriptions of animals in the Bible that may be dinosaur and a Plesiosaur respectively. Behemoth is described as an immense land animal, which is believed by some to be a Sauropod. Leviathan, on the other hand, is portrayed as a terrifying fire-breathing sea monster that may be a Kronosaurus.[5][6]

wow i read that.

i never knoew it could be so bad though.

what a fantastic game.

off i go hunting

b

Also interesting fact about conservipedia, that i forgot to mention.. it is also trying to combat the use of "English'ism" on wiki...

It claims that wikipedia is wrong to use largely english spellings of words rather than the WRONG spellings that american english uses.

<--------- Head explodes !

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

..and the bit that got me spitting coffee over the monitor

Liberals typically align themselves with the Democratic Party in the United States, and the Labour Party in Great Britain

not the best... but the very first paragraphs of conservipedia are great..

Homosexuality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality

Also Conservipedia excludes all sexual organs from mention..

Ohhhhh a fun one

GOD : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

http://www.conservapedia.com/God

Anyone else notice the undertone of paragraph 2.