www.conservapedia.com - What do you think?

I see that it meets Conservapedia's factual standards, as well. Scopes pleading guilty? Oh, and I'm so completely sure that the Scopes Monkey Trial was the reason Bush carried Tennesee in 2000.These people expose the idiocy that represents the very core of American conservativism.

Apparently you don't know much about conservativism. The fact that you're writing them a letter of disagreement will be sufficient reason for them to conclude that you're not one of their own, no matter what you say.That's what happened to conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, after all. He's been all but excommunicated by conservatives for disagreeing with certain aspects of the Bush administration.I'm sorry, I shouldn't be so terse. Your post actually contains a fair bit of hope - the hope that you'll see how the qualities you've identified in Conservapedia, the qualities that trouble you - the echo-chamber atmosphere, the primacy of dogma over fact - aren't limited only to Conservapedia but are obvious in other conservative venues such as Fox News and it's assorted talking heads, the right-wing blog-o-verse, various editorial boards of national newspapers (such as the Washington Post and the New York Times), radio figures such as Sean Hannity, Rush, and Laura Ingram, and various major conservative authors such as Michael Medved, Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, Michelle Malkin, and others.I mean, that's the thing. Was anybody here surprised that "Conservapedia", in practice, would be a place where "facts" were determined as true not by how they matched the evidence but by how they matched conservativism? No, of course we weren't, because that's standard operating procedure for conservatives. What you see in Conservapedia, NJ, is what we see in nearly every media that's supposedly "balanced" towards conservatives.Oh - I was going to suggest: If you want to communicate with the editors of Conservapedia, take advantage of the fact that1) every article has a discussion ("talk") page to discuss its content, and
2) Wikis are universally self-referential. In other words - Conservapedia doubtless has an entry for Conservapedia (just as Wikipedia has an article on Wikipedia). So that's probably a good place for you to voice your concerns about the project.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Not in the slightest. Knock yourself out. If you're able to engage some of its editors in discussion I'd like to see the results of that (if you want.)I'm just making a prediction about the sort of person who goes over to create a "conservative wikipedia" simply to lock his ideological counterparts out of the debate. He's written about it pretty extensively. You'll notice that he wasn't one of the CPAC speakers this year; hasn't been on the panel for a while, I think.

I guess I don't understand that. I've never seen TO proven wrong about anything, and the real treasure is that they have a bibliography for every single article.They can't be labeled suspect simply because they promote the scientific consensus of evolution. That is, after all, the scientific consensus.