# Conservapedia. The "conservative" answer to wikipedia. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 20, 2007, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservapedia-the-conservative-answer-to-wikipedia/393020 "2007-02-20T21:38:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Tapioca\_Dextrin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tapioca_Dextrin)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2007, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservapedia-the-conservative-answer-to-wikipedia/393020/61 "2007-02-23T04:40:15Z")
[Plesiosaur](http://www.conservapedia.com/Plesiosaur) This is the present, party line > [@](#): > > If a meteor had killed the dinosaurs as Charles Darwin suggested, then the plesiosaurs would have died out as well. But, because a plesiosaur was found in the oceans near Japan, the only viable alternative is that the Biblical account of the Genesis flood was true, and that (on account of Noah’s human fallibility) many land based dinosaurs died while the plesiosaur lived on. This also means that the rocks of the late cretaceous period (dated to 65 million years ago by Darwinist geologists) couldn’t be more than a few thousand years old. The obviously false, vandalized by pinko commie nazis version. > [@](#): > > If a meteor had killed the dinosaurs as Charles Darwin suggested, then the plesiosaurs would have died out as well. If, as T.H. Huxley had suggested, the dinosaurs had been abducted by aliens for eugenics experiments, then the plesiosaur would have been abducted as well. But, because a plesiosaur was found in the oceans near Japan, the only viable alternative is that the Biblical account of the Genesis flood was true, and that (on account of Noah’s human fallibility) many land based dinosaurs died while the plesiosaur lived on. This also means that the rocks of the late cretaceous period (dated to 65 million years ago by Darwinist geologists) couldn’t be more than a few thousand years old. I need a drink. ---
**Author:** ![DKW](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dkw/32/3118_2.png) [@DKW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DKW)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservapedia-the-conservative-answer-to-wikipedia/393020/62 "2007-02-26T06:53:52Z")
Am I the only one who found it **unbelievably boring?** I mean, never mind that it’s full of right-wing fruitcake bias and is completely useless as an information resource. That much is pretty obvious. What the hell is there, for the liberal, conservative, or undecided, to _look_ at? All I see are the same old editorals I’ve seen on a dozen other sites and a bunch of badly-worded “debate topics”. (Little advice guys…when dealing with a subject as deep and complex as the Civil War or economics, don’t frame the debate as a goddam **yes/no question**.) I mean, if you’re going to check your brain in at the door, at least do something to maintain our interest. Scream. Make slanderous accusations. Go off on irrelevant tangents. Put up random photographs. _Something._ And the range of topics. History, science, mathematics, economics? That’s it? What about sports? Television and movies? Radio? Video games? Academia? Food? Art? All subjects which conservatives have waged _apoplectic_ arguments about, yet they’re not covered here. I’m sorry, but this is just another website without a point. At least the old Hampsterdance site was good for a chuckle or two. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservapedia-the-conservative-answer-to-wikipedia/393020/63 "2007-02-26T07:56:59Z")
Oh, what the hell, let’s shoot fish in a barrel here. The Conservapedia entry for [Fox News](http://www.conservapedia.com/Fox_news). > [@](#): > > It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American. Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide. Well, at least these guys are putting objectivity ahead of partisan politics, unlike Wikipedia :rolleyes:. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservapedia-the-conservative-answer-to-wikipedia/393020/64 "2007-02-26T12:45:07Z")
[QUOTE=DKW] Am I the only one who found it **unbelievably boring?** [/QUOTE] I think it’s fascinating. They’ve put a bunch of weird and crazy stuff up and been met with ridicule and trolling. Did they know that a lot of this is crazy shit and not a matter of difference in perspective? What will happen? Will they try to continue to show something out of contact with reality? Disappear with excuses? Or will sane conservatives get the confidence of organisers and edit to get something vaguely sensible? (Just because it’s been started by nutbags with bizarre axes to grind doesn’t mean that it can’t develop into something different.) If they do, how will it look compared to wikipedia? If there is competition, will it improve both? Or is “online encyclopedia” a natural monopoly? Will it encourage (currently unclear) better editing practices at wikipedia? Or is content eventually independent of editing practices? What will they make of being laughed at? To what extent will they revel in being a target? To what extent do they _want_ to try to present a credible alternative (even if at present they don’t know how)? Do they think they can hide on the internet? What will people who are not normally vandals do if the site improves? ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2007, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservapedia-the-conservative-answer-to-wikipedia/393020/65 "2007-02-26T15:40:32Z")
It is likely that it will become a parody site. Either that or they’ll likely set it up so that only a few insiders can make changes. If I had enough motivation (which I don’t), I’d craft a parodic entry for Anne Coulter… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservapedia-the-conservative-answer-to-wikipedia/393020.md?page=3)