Conservapedia

[MrSanity]

Knowing many of you despise Wikipedia's ministry of misinformation, I came across a site you might like as a result of reading through what the twerps at Demagogue Underground were ranting about. I would personally like to thank them for giving them the honor as one of the Top Ten Conservative Idiots (in which the Bush Administration was awarded several times) Granted, I browse Wikipedia on occasion, although I realize that some of their editors are perpetuating a disservice towards anyone who desires to stay informed by slipping in deceitful falsehoods in order to poison millions of minds.

Here is your new conservative-friendly dosage of reality:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

[Republican_Legion]

Thanx for the link.
Added it to my bookmarks.

[S-T]

So what is wrong with Wikipedia?

[DoctorDoom]

In most cases, nothing. Articles on science geography, chemistry, math et al are usually dead on, as can be proven by researching alternate sources.

However, if the artickes involve opinion, ideology, politics et al, their accuracy cannot be assumed.

[Republican_Legion]

In most cases, nothing. Articles on science geography, chemistry, math et al are usually dead on, as can be proven by researching alternate sources.

However, if the artickes involve opinion, ideology, politics et al, their accuracy cannot be assumed.

100% true.
However on profiles of the members of congress they have some very positive stuff on Republicans put in there by Republican bloggers but often it gets reversed by Liberal dimwits.

I had to clean out some of the leftist lies about Michael Savage.
They thought 1 Lib blogger accusing savage of being a fascist was worthy of being added to the profile of Michael Savage.

[Taylor]

Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it too.

[Charity]

Much better!

[MrSanity]

The only problems with Conservapedia is that it looks brand new, and it doesn't have a lot of material. They had nothing for Nancy Pelosi. Also, it doesn't redirect you anywhere like Wikipedia does.