User:R. fiend/A Conservapedia comparison

I've been checking out Conservapedia recently, and although it's not quite as bad as I thought, it has a long way to go before it can call itself an encyclopedia, even if you do dismiss its admitted bias.

Here are some results from random page searches at conservapedia, and their equivalent articles at Wiki:

• France - France
• Perfect competition - Perfect competition
• Edvard Munch - Edvard Munch
• Manifest Destiny - Manifest Destiny
• French Indochina - French Indochina
• Gordon B. Hinckley - Gordon B. Hinckley
• Rev. Richard Johnson (their longest one yet, but it isn't even an article!) - Richard Johnson (chaplain) (I think it's the same guy, I honestly can't be sure based on the Conservapedia "article")
• The Fellowship of the Ring - (okay, I admit for this one the playing field is going to be nowhere near level) - The Fellowship of the Ring
• Frank E. Peretti - Frank E. Peretti
• Plinian eruption - Plinian eruption
• Probable cause - Probable cause
• Oolitic - Oolite
• Thebes - Thebes, Greece
• Paul Wolfowitz (probably the best article so far. Surprise, surprise) - Paul Wolfowitz
• Linear function - Linear function
• One-child policy - One-child policy
• Timothy Ball - Timothy Ball
• AC/DC - AC/DC
• Economics Lecture Four - surprisingly, Wikipedia does not have the fourth economics lecture by Andy Schlafly (who curiously lacks a economics degree). I do find it curious that Conservapedia so often criticizes how wikipedia, unlike a real encyclopedia, does such-and-such (has long articles, allows "gossip"). But how many encyclopedias do you know that have economics lectures?

And, my favorite (which I came across in an earlier random page search):

• Internet humor. Basically a circular dicdef.

So they have few articles, all in all. The longer ones are on conservative topics and have an obvious bias. The rest are basically substubs. While I agree with them in a way that there is an advantage to conciseness (which Wikipedia can often lack), is an "article" like this even worthwhile? I think this project is doomed to failure.

I assume many will see this as moot, as Conservapedia is basically a joke (unintentionally). Several of the most active sysops have admitted adding false information just to piss off liberals, so it's basically lost even its claim of credibility.

The site is largely composed of critics, and handful of useful contributors (you can count them on one hand)), and complete retards. Andy Schlafly, the founder, being King-Retard. WP's own Ed Poor being one of the Vice-tards.

Oh, and just for kicks, compare their article on the minesweeper USS Acme to their article on the Rocky Mountains. Admittedly, the first is taken word-for-word from a public domain source (as is ours, nearly), but still, pretty funny.

Anyway, check out Rationalwiki.com. A fantastic site. Look at the Best of Conservapedia page; it truly highlights some hilarious things.