Creating little Hannities

Going along with the theme of creating their own reality, "conservatives" (likely neo-con ideologues who pose as conservatives) have created their own Wikipedia.

Conervapedia is the "conservative" response to the "liberal" bias taking control of the popular, consensus-edited Wikipedia.

Or so says the founder Andy Schlafly in the Toronto Star.

"Wikipedia has been taken over by liberally biased editors," Schlafly declares. "It's mobocracy."

"if anyone tries to put in facts that are friendly to Christianity or American history, those facts are likely to be diluted or censored by the mob."

Of course, he might say that that quote itself was chosen by the liberal Star to make him look like a moron.

Among things that differentiate the two online encyclopedias are the formation of dates.

Wikipedia uses C.E. B.C.E. to distinguish the periods around Christ's life on the Gregorian Calendar, whereas Conservapedia makes a point to use A.D. and B.C.
You know, since Christ is a universal truth and all.

I've wondered the about the real truth that Wikipedia has been hiding from me all this time, which upon reading Conservapedia, is a revelation.

Among other things that I "learned:"

1. "There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is closer to mainstream America than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission."

2. Among those who call themselves liberal, support is common for "taxpayer-funded abortion," "censorship of prayer in the classroom," "income redistribution," and "opposition to a strong American foreign policy."

Many times when subjects would seem to curry to the right, positions were either left vague or suggested.

For example, I expected the site to crucify Same-sex marriage as factually an abomination. But the passage qualifies the abomination with "Social conservatives regard it as immoral." This is hardly a debatable fact. But Conservapedia does right away talk about how James Dobson considers same-sex "marriage" a counterfeit because marriage is exclusively between a man and a women.

The main reason I read Wikipedia in the first place is for entertainment, and second, to get links to articles that can verify some positions.

Conservapedia will definitely prove better at the entertaining function, and if I need links to conservative viewpoints, it provides a virtual smörgåsbord.