Conservapedia Just a Wingnut Wiki, Not an Objective Answer to Wikipedia’s Alleged Liberal Bias
Wicked wiki: What rock was I under when Conservapedia hit the news? How did I miss it on NPR, in the newspapers and on numerous weblogs? Oh yeah, I was completely out of pocket during the two weeks in March when it rose up out of nowhere and reared its butt-ugly head.
Conservapedia positions itself as an alternative to Wikipedia with its librul bias:
Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public. Now it’s time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!
Conservapedia began in November 2006, as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students meeting in New Jersey.
Conservapedia has since grown enormously, including contributors worldwide. Conservapedia already exceeds the number of entries in the Oxford Dictionary of World History. Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind.
The “study” referred to above is a laundry list of examples of Wikipedia’s mistakes, inaccuracies and instances where entries would not pass the “Bill O’Reilly Test.” Here are a couple, starting with the number-one instance:
- Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.
- About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible. But enter “Great Flood” into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled “Deluge (mythology).” That entry then uses “myth” or “mythology” nearly 70 times in its description. Its entry on “Noah’s Ark” is just as biased.
- Wikipedia’s entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion. Wikipedia’s entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children. Instead of providing these facts, Wikipedia blames women by declaring that “breast cancer elicits disproportionate fear in women.”
OK, it’s easy to see where this is going. So how did they come up with that “statistic” that Wikipedia is six times more liberal? Creationistic math, that’s how:
Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as “conservative” compared with “liberal”, and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as “liberal” compared with “conservative”. That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.


