There is a partial explanation for this:
[
](http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About)The question, then, is where are the articles written by the college-bound students?
Sadly, the college is Bob Jones University.
Then start a thread about it so we can make fun of it as well. There’s even a button for just such activities, and neither aschlafly nor DU will prevent you from doing so.
How else would I have known that the ratification of the nineteenth amendment was an early example of judicial activism?
Bwahahha! Not an example of idiocy, just vandalism;
A data point for homo ergaster: Peru
Which is better than California:
You’re missing the point. The SDMB has a propensity to point out conservative stupidity and yet give a pass to liberal stupidity. I alluded to this when I noted that there were two threads about Conservapedia and none for Demopedia.
I wasn’t calling for equal time, I was pointing out that the SDMB as a whole isn’t interested in giving it. But if you think a thread ridiculing Demopedia would reach two pages, then by all means start one.
I wonder if the founders of this site, who complain of an “anti-American” and “anti-Christian” bias in the Wikipedia, are aware that the latter is a global database? Meaning, non-Americans and even people from non-Christian countries get to contribute.
If Demopedia really is locked since 2004 as you mentioned in post #78, then by Internet standards it is now a relic, and hardly worth discussing.
I’m missing nothing. If you want for us to point out liberal stupidity, start a thread.
Once again, if the thread isn’t started, it won’t reach a single page. Or was this just another drive-by “It’s not fair, the liberals have taken over the board” type hijack?
To be fair, I doubt that it would be quite as entertaining as this one (and possibly much shorter), but that has nothing to do with which way it leans. On the other hand, it might be 20 pages long, as there is a lot more info, so I haven’t seen all of the gems that might be buried there. What makes Conservapedia so humorous is that it’s not trying to be funny (that and the obvious, or not so obvious, parodies that have slipped through the cracks there).
Are you saying there’s some kind of liberal bias?
I had a look at Demopedia; the bits I saw may be completely wrong, stupid and ridiculously biased, but they’re so damn boring, I couldn’t look at them for long enough to tell. Conservapedia is different and deserves ridicule because it’s stupidity of an interesting variety; the site makes such grandiose statements, that are also demonstrably false, it can’t help but be funny.
If there is anything like that on demopedia, I’d be happy to laugh at it too.
Reread. I think it’s currently locked but when it wasn’t you had to be member of the DU since at least 2004 to edit. I do know it was editable as of this past summer. Whatever the case, Demopedia has functioned within recent history and was/is deserving of ridicule on this board.
Mangetout, I hope you’re not saying there’s not a liberal bias on the SDMB. As to comparing Demopedia to Conservapedia, I will concede that Conservapedia is the worse of the two. Demopedia seems to be concerned with ignoring opposing opinions whereas Conservapedia seems concerned with ignoring opposing facts. But if you think there’s nothing on Demopedia to make fun of do a search on “Commander CuckooBananas” and use a little imagination.
Having said all this, I’m not trying to start a thread hijack because I truly am enjoying the well deserved bashing of Conservapedia. I’m just trying to point out that the lefties have their own loonies.
In terms of American politics, yes, there is; in terms of world politics, no - I’d say the board leans noticeably to the right.
As a matter of theory, if lefties on these boards start threads lampooning silly right wing things and righties just post whines about the lack of threads lampooning silly left wing things, the boards are going to appear to have a certain slant.
Hey, you can hold whatever it makes you feel good to hold. But as crowmanyclouds already pointed out to you, this opinion requires you to ignore Conservapedia’s own statement about the reason for its existence:
Complain about Demopedia all you like, and feel free to start a thread about it if you want. But it is silly to try to pretend that this is some kind of face-off between Conservapedia and Demopedia, when Conservapedia’s creators themselves make it completely clear that it’s Wikipedia that bothers them.
Demopedia just used the same format as Wikipedia it’s not the same thing at all as Conservipedia which states it’s a replacement for Wikipedia. It’s just lefty politics in one place. Kos has one too. Main Page - dKosopedia
I’m sure other blogs do too, sort of an archive.
Let me restate my point: If you want a free online open source encyclopedia I doubt you’ll get much better than Wikipedia. If you want a ideologically biased free online open source encyclopedia then you can go to Demopedia or Conservapedia. Conservapedia may claim that it is a better place for info than Wikipedia while Demopedia does not, but what would be the motive for Demopedia if not to be a liberal (etc.) encyclopedia? And which one of the two has been pitted on the SDMB? But, hey, you can hold whatever it makes you feel good to hold.
Um, to be a specialized source of a limited area of knowledge?
Are you now going to pit every website that doesn’t strive to cover all perspectives on all subjects, like Wikipedia? What could possibly be the motive for the Seattle Times if not to give short shrift to Chicago’s news?
Specialization does not a vast leftwing conspiracy make, Asylum. Conservapedia, however, baldly states that it exists specifically in opposition to Wikipedia, simply because reality has a liberal bias.
So quit being so predictable.
Really, or does it just provide an echo chamber, kind of like Conservapedia? Oh, and I don’t seem to recall claiming a left wing conspiracy, only a bias.
Nice slippery slope.
Pot. Kettle. Black.