Check out Billy Bob’s Webpage: http://www.billybobneck.com/ It won’t answer your question, either.
From Wiki: Conservapedia is a private wiki project to construct an encyclopedia whose articles are pro-American, supportive of conservative Christianity, and socially conservative.
[About Wikipedia]Wikipedia’s reliability and accuracy have been questioned. The site has also been criticised for its susceptibility to vandalism, uneven quality, systemic bias and inconsistencies, and for favouring consensus over credentials in its editorial process. Wikipedia’s content policies and sub-projects set up by contributors seek to address these concerns. Two scholarly studies have concluded that vandalism is generally short-lived and that Wikipedia is roughly as accurate as other online encyclopedias.
I’m guessing the version that is open to criticism willing to trust its contributors to police one another may be the more reliable of the two. Unless you’re so close to Jesus you have joint checking.
Why the hell don’t they call it ‘Religiopedia’ instead? Since when does conservatism = godboy?
The project’s biggest mistake is to imagine that those categories represent a consensus and can be described both fully and coherently at the same time. In truth, there’s plenty of difference of opinion within those categories, and because the opinions are strongly held and emotively defended, disagreements can turn into bitter fights.
If they lock it down, it will represent the views of a small subset of the notional audience and will never be relevant to anyone else; if they open it up for editing, it will just turn into Wikipedia.
They forget to mention the proper name of dinosaurs: “Jesus Horses.”
Actually, wiki doesn’t know it too.
They share with Wikipedia a sort of swirly gray background theme: is this a standard background to the software both sites use, or are they deliberately trying to be easily mistaken for Wiki?
I’ve never heard the “Nile Mosaic” of Palestrina
Is it a good piece? A “yabba dabba dooooo!” anywhere in there?
(I know Palestrina is a real place. I feel like being annoying. Ignore me.)
</sarcasm>
Standard background.
The base problem is that, to any extremist, their categories are fully and coherently described, and their is a consensus: Everything We Believe vs Wrong. See? Consensus.
I have an account there, and although I have been warned by ASchafly for adding some facts to and removing some bias from an article, the account is still edit-enabled. So, any suggestions as to what to use the account for?
Edit: Dammit, I’ve been blocked now and my IP has been banned.
Any individual extremist may consider that true, and describing their views as blandly and generally as ‘everything we believe’ may foster the illusion of consensus, but try creating a community of such extremists - and have them talk details - and the cracks will begin to show.
Check out this version of the page:http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&oldid=18657
specifically, the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph.
There’s some mighty fine self-parody going on there.
That is what it is, isn’t it?
If only it were true, but alas, no. Or at least I don’t think so.
What’s actually going on there is that many of the articles have been locked down and are editable only by a small handful of nutcases, consequently, the information on the site is sparse and, well, nutty.
From the quote taken from Wikipedia by BrainGlutton in the OP:
I love how this exemplifies that scientists are biased and should be disregarded unless they are saying something extremely unlikely. Then they are not only okay, but you can pump up their credentials by describing them as “trained” scientists, who I suppose are better than untrained scientists.
I’m enjoying seeing conservatives come out with their stuff (like this, or like the right wing “Daily Show”), since it routinely demonstrates how crazy, full of shit, unfunny, and generally undesirable their actual beliefs are. Sunlight is such a great disinfectant.
I mean, how must a rational, reasonable conservative feel seeing this thing being pimped as the repository of conservative thinking?
I think she is a shrill harpie, I don’t know anything about Edwards and none of my friends are gay, but that is a funny line 
I remember being involved in some edit disputes on Wikipedia regarding articles where people wanted to introduce a heavy creationist slant. They supported all their stuff with these bogus websites “answers in genesis” and “creationism.org” and “creationwiki”, and got quite frustrated when it was pointed out that these are unscholarly cites that reference discredited sources. Sounds like they’ve simply created a new wiki where nonscholarly sources are allowed.
I imagine this will go much the way of CreationWiki… originally intended to foster collaboration of like-minded people, the sunlight disinfected it so much that it now it is closed to public editing and is maintained by highly energetic, carefully vetted contributors.
On second thought, this could be very interesting. Since theoretically it is open to non-evangelicals, you could potentially see some interesting cleavage planes develop on certain issues. I’ll be watching this with interest.
Really? Is that the first time you’ve heard that joke? I’m sure there must be 100 jokes of exactly that formulation right here on the SDMB during the last calendar year.