I hope you have some time on your hands because you're going to need it to digest the full smackdown power in the back-and-forths seen in the threads of Conservapedia.
Start here, at DailyKos to get the intitial background and then when you're good and ready to jump into deeply threaded comments, go to Conservapedia and start reading.
It's awesome!
Hahahahahahahaha
Listen towards the end when it's suggested that Kevin James go read a specific book. He fires back by suggesting the Tweety's other guest watch Pathway to 9/11, the ABC Mouse-u-mentary.
Of which, 40 percent of their most viewed documents has either one thing or another to do with with homosexuality.
Let's hear it for Conservapedia!
(h/t to Lutton in comments)
Only in wingnut land...
Brought to you by:
From the same folks who brought you this:
comes this new attempt at rewriting history.
Heh. I think I'll let his votes speak for themselves or for those of you who don't like to read (like, um, Conservapedians), I've included this easy to interpret political compass-style graphic:
Nice try, though, Conservapedia.
(Updated below)
Funny how God not only throws a kink in science, but also medicine:
SEATTLE - Pharmacists have sued Washington state over a new regulation that requires them to sell emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill."
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."
"The stakes really couldn't be much higher," plaintiffs' attorney Kristen Waggoner said.
The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion cannot stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs.
The state's Roman Catholic bishops and other opponents predicted a court challenge after the rule was adopted, saying the state was wrongly forcing pharmacists to administer medical treatments they consider immoral.
As with any ED tablet, in the rare event of priapism (an erection lasting more than four hours), seek immediate medical help to avoid long-term injury.
In rare instances, men taking prescription ED tablets (including CIALIS) reported a sudden decrease or loss of vision. It's not possible to determine if these events are related directly to the ED tablets or to other factors. If you have a sudden decrease or loss of vision, stop taking any ED tablet and call your doctor right away.
CIALIS can cause your blood pressure to drop suddenly to an unsafe level if it is taken with certain other medicines. You could get dizzy, faint, or have a heart attack or stroke.
Mosques
Not to be confused with churches....
synagogues...
Or for that matter, the ambiguous term temple...
Mosques.
Where Islamic radicals plan their attacks.
Forget indicating exactly where in the world that might be happening since, you know, it's rather irrelevent.
Mosques. Islamic Radicals. Attacks.
All you really need to know.
After realizing that Frank had noticed this historic little gem for this site, I decided to go back and re-read the Conservapedia entry that started it all.
Somehow, amidst all the excitement of learning that I had received an honorary mention by the great and powerful, (yet less biased than it's anti-American, anti-Christian, pro-gay marriage rival, Wikipedia)--Conservapedia--I must've missed perhaps the most important and crucial detail of the entire post completely!
See, the Conservapedia link goes to a page that discusses what Conservapedians feel is a popular post--their Theory of Evolution page.
Here's what they say:
Okay, so Andy has said that Theory of evolution is popular, and that that means that many people visit the article because it's so terribly awesome.
So. If it's so awesome and great, there are surely sources that say "Hey, the Evolution article on Conservapedia is cool! Go check it out!"
This is my attempt to find some of these sources.
I did a simple Google search for Conservapedia Evolution and checked the results. It's a fairly good method of determining who points to it. Not complete, but I'm not aware of a less biased or more reliable method right now. Thus, my starting point has been this page. I'll only focus on articles that actually mention the Evolution article itself (and not, for example, the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page with its references to evolution). Order of sections is based on the Google rank - first section here had the highest rank.
1. Reddit
2. NoScope
3. On Evolution
4. Phillybits (Me...:p)
5. Cosmic Variance
6. Slashdot
7. James Randi Educational Foundation Forum
8. Seattle Post-Intelligencer
9. Everything2
10. WhyGodWontHealAmputees
11. CUTTING OFF
These were the first two results pages on Google. The number of positive comments about the evolution article is ZERO.
I'll take "Things that make you go Hmmmm..." for 800, Alex.
"Controversies"
Alberto Gonzalez was the center of a controversy over the firings of 8 United States attorneys. Detractors insisted that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, instead of performance-based reasons (a claim that no one in the White House has ever made). Despite the fact that United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States, and can be fired at any time for any reason, the liberally biased media insists on calling it a scandal. So, even if the President did want to remove any United States attorney just because he or she was a Democrat, the President would be within his purview to do so. In fact, Alberto Gonzalez "tempered the White House desire to replace U.S. Attorneys wholesale." [2] During his testimony over this "Controversy", Mr. Gonzales stated 74 times that he could not recall various events relating to the situation. [3]
Trivia
* Albert Gonzalez was voted the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1992.
* His Secret Service nickname is "Elephant", a reference to his uncanny ability to memorize obscure parts of United States law.
Danger of spreading the Anti-Christian Message
I think that this article ignores hugely the threat that the exponents of evolution pose to God and decent Christian Americans. Even explaining evolution on this site is a bad idea, as it is a theory that makes a lot of sense, due to a lot of evidence being planted by God to test us. If people hear about evolution there is a danger that they end up understanding it and, particularly if they are scentifically minded, believing in it. Explaination of Evolution on the internet is a dangerous thing. Signed Revilo314.
Awesome!
I would have preferred they include references to my repeated analysis of Conservapedia's traffic rankings and popularity but instead, they chose to cite me for my comparison of their entry on the Theory of Evolution versus Wikipedia's entry on the Theory of Evolution.
Reach...
Rank...
Page views...
Trending...
I think the recent increase in page views can be chalked up to random articles about Conservapedia and the curiosity in such a site it represents.
Anyways, here's where they stand in ranking against that bastion of evul librul information gathering, Wikipedia.
Rank...
Since I feel no need to take 3 or 4 more screenshots to emphasize Wikipedia's traffic rankings which are clearly off the charts, here's Wikipedia's current trend outlook.
Update - Shit, even Uncyclopedia eclipses Conservapedia in traffic...
Sheesh! When even more people are interested in utter bullshit than what Conservapedia has to offer, that's saying a lot.
Hilarious!
Needing a good laugh, I started looking into Conservapedia again lately just to see what wackiness the theologic scholars were discussing. Then, I came across the site White Coat Underground, written by an M.D. and dealing with some of the issues Conservapedia has. Based on a suggestion to look into the Conservapedia entry for "Condom", I decided to then peruse a couple other related topics just to see what the CP's have to say.
I'll let the images speak for the post. You can draw your own conclusions...
Condoms
Penis
Vagina
Sex
So far, we've seen some pretty flimsy explanations or discussion about the topics presented. How can we push the envelope....
Lesbian
Ok. So there's no specific page for "Lesbian" but there are numerous references to some other pages that might be worth exploring.
But what happens if we search for "Homosexuality" on Conservapedia? Think we might actually get some information? Some letters on the screen perhaps? Well let's take a look...
Homosexuality
This entry is then followed by 50 references and two external links.
For a group of people looking to afford a fair and balanced approach to an online news consortium modeled after Wikipedia, it seems awfully ironic that a group that won't even talk about condoms much less has anything substantive, meaningful, or lengthy to say about the penis, vagina, sex, or lesbians sure seem to have a lot to devote to the topic of homosexuality and specifically, gay men as opposed to gay women who get very few mentions in the article.
By my count, these are the summaries. "Woman" 2 times (mentioned in Bible verse related to men lying with men as they would with a 'woman'), "lesbian" occurred 3 times, "gay" 15 times, and "men" 26 times.
As A Big Fat Slob says, "Here's a crayon, kids. Draw yer own conclusions."
(This post is for educational purposes only. Educational because I want you to be educated about the types of or presence of (or, in this case, lack of presence of) certain information made available through the rarely difficult and truly undedicated work of the Conservapediologists.)
The latest:
March 17th
March 12th
(This post is for educational purposes only. Educational because I want you to be educated about the types of or presence of (or, in this case, lack of presence of) certain information made available through the rarely difficult and truly undedicated work of the Conservapediologists.)
Not even one week ago, I wrote about many things regarding Conservapedia but one thing in particular was the pronouncement on their front page, "Conservapedia Jumps To Number One!"
Not only did they flaunt their huge traffic bump, but they continued on, typical of an inflated ego, by going so far as to compare their traffic to such right-wing bloviators as Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity, by also exclaiming:
Now, to be fair, this was true and is evidenced by this chart, a similar one that they had originally linked to.
So what's changed? Well, for starters, let's take another look at Conservapedia's front page which seems to change more frequently than opinions on evolution. (The event for the 14th, which got cut off, was 1879 - Albert Einstein was born today.)
Did you notice anything, um, missing? That's right, pronouncements of traffic ranks. No longer are they boldly displaying their Alexa traffic rank. No longer are they citing their immensity in comparison to well-known right-wing pundits. No longer are they stating that their site is growing rapidly.
Why is this?
Simply put, their traffic is bombing. Here's a 5-way, 3 month spread (chart below), the same type of ranking I provided above but almost a week old, between the usual suspects, but also including Wikipedia.org as a comparative measure. It's the same chart I used in my earlier post.
And here is the same exact type of chart from today. Same players, same time frame, same everything.
And as a further clarified version, here's a chart indicating just Conservapedia's recent traffic "growth." 
As you can clearly see, Conservapedia has actually been experiencing more of a steady negative traffic growth as opposed to a positive growth, something they were quick and proud to display from the moment Jon Swift kicked them onto the map, an act the folks over at Conservapedia, to my knowledge, still haven't properly thanked Mr. Swift for who, quite coincidentally as well as ironically, was just recently misrepresented as the proprietor of Conservapedia.
The Sy Sperling of Conservapedia, if you will.
Anyways, those are the facts, whether it's Conservapedia, Wikipedia, or Uncyclopedia reporting them.
And yet, because some people have a problem with evolution, Peter Griffin covers both angles.
(This post is for educational purposes only. Educational because I want you to be educated about the types of or presence of (or, in this case, lack of presence of) certain information made available through the rarely difficult and truly undedicated work of the Conservapediologists.)
Sadly, the entry on Jesus is seriously lacking and honestly, I won't hesitate to suggest an alternate if you are truly in need of more information on Jesus since and after visiting Conservapedia's entry, I don't see how you could possibly leave that site any wiser or with any less information than when you entered it.
I mean...well here, take a look. This is the entire Conservapedia page for Jesus. Mind you, there are actually two images here with the bottom 1/4 of the page being a separate image.
Given that this entry is simply lacking every which way from Sunday, I would first recommend that this article entry be added to the Articles Needing Major Improvements list because, ironically, it's not there.
Next, I would recommend you visit the Wikipedia entry on Jesus (whose entry, if broken up into screenshots, would simply be too large and time consuming for me to put together) as it simply contains far more relevant information as well as outside topics of interest, related topics, and associated internal and external links, all regarding Jesus.
Ultimately, the bottom line is that for the most up-to-date and thorough collection of information regarding Jesus that is available on most modern wiki-styled sites on the Internet today, Wikipedia simply walks on water in the face of Conservapedia.
Uncyclopedia entries on Wikipedia and on Conservapedia.
Wikipedia entries on Uncyclopedia and on Conservapedia
Conservapedia entries on Uncyclopedia and on Wikipedia (requires follow-through to Wikipedia bias page)
The answers given are hilarious.
Thirsty for more?
Evolutionionist: How do you explain Conservapedia's, the real encyclopedia's, skepticism toward evolution?
What is your opinion of the conservative christian version of wikipedia - Conservapedia?
And for even more fun, check out Uncyclopedia and specifically, the entry on Flying Spaghetti Monster.
After my last trip to Conservapedia I made, I wrote about Jesus' pet dinosaur after learning how the Conservapedia entry on dinosaurs had recently been edited to remove a picture of Jesus who was depicted riding a dinosaur like an equestrian rides a horse while also carrying a younger, or perhaps just smaller dinosaur in his lap, while the article itself tried to speculate that folks from "some" religious circles believe that dinosaurs and man once lived side by side in the Garden of Eden.
Since my last post, however, I've only done some light dumpster diving behind Conservapedia and only found remains from some of their disposed and rotten throw-away articles.
I did find out, however, that in terms of carrying any weight in the blogosphere when writing about Conservapedia, I actually have a bigger dick that Jesus' General.
What brings me back today was an event so nominal yet so frequent, that it actually motivated me was a surprise. See, I like the folks at Conservapedia, I'm obsessed with my site traffic. God, I must check it 10 times a day just to see where people are coming from, who's linking to me, what people are searching for that brings them to me and like anyone who checks their stats, an upwards bump is met with joy.
Recently, however, one thing I've noticed is that I've been receiving more and more hits from people searching for information on Conservapedia on Technorati. After noticing the last few days that I've been receiving hit after hit from Conservapedia searchers over at Technorati, I decided it was time to check back in with the myth-makers.
The first stop? The front door...
Upon stepping back on their front porch, I've noticed a few things have changed since I last stopped by...
Let's try to get some of the less important information out of the way first.
Site Traffic Pt. I
The nuts at Conservapedia have exclaimed, correctly (for now, anyways), that their traffic jumped so much, that they now sit atop such popular conservative sites as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. While this is true, it's misleading to make that claim, especially right on the front page as the traffic increase was not generated by the outstanding content that is featured within, but more likely is directly attributable to folks, such as myself and others, who have helped point out some of the ridiculousness contained within, raising more awareness (that's the key word) about the site, overall.
Nobody did a better job of highlighting this site than Jon Swift whose blistering yet hilarious takedown of Conservapedia led to the largest site traffic increase Conservapedia had seen prior to Swift's publication. Since that piece, numerous bloggers, like myself, have written at least once on Conservapedia, mainly ridiculing and laughing at some of the controversial entries contained within. (Technorati)
Site Traffic Pt. II
Let's take a closer look at the site traffic that Conservapedia has prominently displayed in the form of a link to
