Talk:Examples of Bias in Conservapedia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Given time, this article may prove to be the best parody of Conservapedia.Mastermund 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given time, the best parody of Conservapedia will be Conservapedia. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the best we can do until we can mirror Conservapedia on Uncyclopedia.Mastermund 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
There are some good people there. You'll notice their contributions when you stumble across a paragraph on Conservapedia that isn't horribly skewed, doesn't "quote mine" and doesn't use biblical passages as references on pages that aren't about biblical things. How long those people will be there, I don't know. There's hope, at least.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but I think there's little chance of that. Quote mining is a God-given right (or not...) that conservatives love to exercise - especially in relation to America's Founding Fathers. The people you're describing are, ironically, too liberal for Conservapedia. Facts only hurt Conservapedia. I mean, their page on evolution is not titled Evolution, but Theory of Evolution. After reading their list of things wrong with Wikipedia, I am convinced that Conservapedia should not be taken seriously by anyone.Mastermund 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Conservapedia will fail. I'm just trying to be hopeful, because otherwise we're fucked. This is the same group of people that's a large enough minority to shift elections in the US, and the same group that isn't planning for the future because Jesus is coming back to save them from the chaos that not planning for the future creates. Falwell may be a hateful jackass, but there are millions of people who take his word as though it was the word of God. (Have you ever heard him say "humanism"? He loads it with enough bile that I have to clean my glasses afterward).--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OMFG, some of the entries in this article are a riot. ;) The article had me laughing so hard, I think all three floors of my apartment are coming down now to see what the ruckus is. --Interiot 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Funniest thing on the page is, of course, the direct links to the articles on conservapedia. Just LOL reading the Conservapedia article on Uncyclopedia. For a short article, it sure does have a lot of unsubstantiated opinion in it - "Most of Uncyclopedia's users appear to be from Europe" - which apparently is meant to be an explanation for how godless and mocking we all are. Well, how the fuck do they know something like that? Sure, I'm from Britain - but I only signed up here yesterday. I suppose, to someone who thinks producing a pro-American sectarian biased Encyclopedia that reflects your own prejudice back at you, calling other people "Europeans" does count as a serious insult - for me it's just a fact about the place I was born... PaulHammond 21:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
btw - the Uncyclopedia article currently says that "Captain Obvious" is one of the historical figures we most admire. D'you reckon anyone over there will work out that, unlike Oscar Wilde, he's not a real person? PaulHammond 21:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Who's not a real person? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we could feature conservapedia itself on the front page? Or do a reskin of the mainpage to take the piss? It seems that there's boundless opportunity for humour here, but best to leave most of it to the website itself since it's funny enough already. --Kelpan 12:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A Conservapedia reskin? That's an idea that's just crazy enough to work. Also, it's a sign of the apocalypse. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 12:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. How about we start working on it here? Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we link to lots of conservapedia articles on it or just mock it through the main page and have normal links to uncyc articles?

Why don't you asswipes just shut your mouths? This article is a piece of crap and you know it. Nothing you say about that site is true. Absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Beezwax 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you. The "Statistics" section is spot-friggin' on. Kangaroo, if anything, is less crazy than the real Kangaroo section on Conservapedia. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Goddamnit. Stupid Uncyclopedia. I choked up and fell off my chair when I read the link to their "one accurate article". I hope you're happy. Feebas factor 18:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I am. You're welcome. Mastermund 03:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The palpatine quote is pure genius (and true), whoever thought it up should be made a king or queen. --Theadept 20:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! True, the quote is! A pighead, User:Modusoperandi is! 02:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Yes I am. Congrats on the quote. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

edit This list needs a lot of work

Among other problems, it alternates between attacking Conservapedia directly and by parodying Conservapedia. Either one by itself might be funny but the combination doesn't work very well. Maybe should fork into two lists, one of which is something like "Examples of Bias in Conservapedia as reported by True Christian Conservatives"? JoshuaZ 22:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We just went alphabetical, to minimize unalphabeticalness. If you can make it better, go nuts. This is a wiki, after all. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I split it. And I removed some of the more prosaic examples that are just examples of being divorced from reality and aren't really that funny. I'm not sure if this made it funnier as a whole or not. JoshuaZ 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

edit preference regarding serial commas?

This is minor but I can't help myself --- this article uses the serial (or Oxford) comma in some locations but not in others. Do the original authors have a preference? I tend to prefer it, but I'd be happy to change it either way, because my brain is hardwired to correct grammar. Is there standard Uncyclopedia style on this? ( if you have no idea what I am talking about) Thanks! --Raxvulpine 13:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I say do whatever you want with that. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c

edit Should we be reporting instances of real bias?

Is this just supposed to be satirical? I just realized that their article on Wicca doesn't mention a word about the centuries of persecution Wiccans had to endure at the hands of... guess who... and I have an insane urge to put it somewhere or another. Navwheel-small.png» DJ "Reaper of Fail" Gentoo, now with wit, sarcasm, and even more obscure folk metal. Now in lime green! 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

edit Awesome

I'd like to see the conversation between the founder of Conservapedia and his friends.

Andrew Schlafly You know, I think wikipedia has a whole load of liberal bias, and they banned me for creating articles about me having sex with my dog.
Friend Orly?
Andrew Schlafly Yeah, so i'm going to do the only sensible thing, create my own with a whole load of conservitive bias, that will teach em.
Friend' Good for you.

No sense - and I realised this isn't funny, so I put it in talk 11:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

edit Conservapedia watching this page?

Earlier this year, i added this in the list

"The article on shrimp makes no mention of the fact that the Bible says that it is an abomination to eat shrimp." Suddenly, 2 weeks later on the conservapedia page, the article on shrimp in conservapedia suddenly mentioned the shrimp/bible connection! Not only that, but it appears that conservpedia has mended every article on their site that is listed on this uncyclopedia article. Wow! I have a feeling that what we do here will easily manipulate the actions of conservapedia editors. Everyone, keep note of that ;)

edit Correct articles

This should be added under correct articles.

Personal tools