A conservative Wikipedia? No thank you

This has to be the maddest idea I’ve ever seen. A conservative, far-right ‘fork’ of Wikipedia. It claims that Wikipedia shows ‘left-wing bias’. Well, I’ll leave that for you to decide. Let’s see what delights it has on offer:

The global warming article shows distinct pro-Bush bias…

Politics of global warming

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the United Nations (see IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at lease the next century. One prominent journal published a literature search by an avowed Kyoto Protocol supporter claiming a “scientific consensus” overwhelmingly supports the IPCC reports.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN’s assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen.

Spot something wrong here? Let’s see the ‘further readings’ section of the same page:

Further Readings

• Does a global temperature exist?, Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, June 2007.
• Fighting the Hoax
• The appliance of science by Mike Hulme.
• An Inconvenient Truth, Film by Al Gore
• Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks, lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
• Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming, by Richard Lindzen
• Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus – Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Global warming smear targets
• The physical evidence of earth’s unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle
• Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming
• The Great Global Warming Swindle – Documentary Film

Methinks there may be some bias in this link list too.

Conservapedia has no entry for ‘evolution’. It redirects to Theory of evolution.

Theory of evolution

The Theory of evolution is a materialist explanation of the history of life on earth.

Well, that’s not entirely true, is it? This part of the “about” page is quite amusing:

We don’t make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does.

Wikipedia does not claim to be neutral. It tries to be neutral, and that’s how good Wikipedia articles are written. And as for the ‘study’ that ‘proves’ Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public -

1. Facts don’t necessarily tie in with opinion (the knowledge of which is basic English Language)
2. perhaps when the survey was conducted America just wasn’t very liberal.

Overall these are just some of my complaints about Conservapedia:

1. Pseudoscience means simply “science which does not comply with scientific method”. This does not mean “science that is untrue”. It means “science that is not possible to test using internationally agreed scientific methods”. It is in no way insulting.
2. Liberal Christians and Americans do exist.
3. Science and Christian beliefs are compatible – Pope Pius XII once said that “true science discovers God waiting behind every door”.
4. It appears also to be openly racist – number 11 on this list seems to imply that Palestinians on the whole are terrorists. No they’re not… and since when did the Bible advocate racism?
5. There are credible scholars and historians who are sceptic of the existence of Jesus.
6. It describes the dating methodology used by evolutionists as ‘fraudulent’. Lies. Lies. Lies.

I am so sorely tempted to create an account called “Barrack Obama” and splash “HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT” across the top of every page. It is not trustworthy at all, as it claims.