Is it worth trying to "improve" conservapedia?

[mrgorth]

I wondered how such a thing could work based on how wikipedia is done and then I looked at all the rules conservapedia has in place. Is there any interest in trying to put actual facts into conservapedia, complying with their rules, or should we let it fester and die?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

[tblue]

1. Maybe not, but it could be a lot of fun. We could play on their neanderthal & barbarian tendencies

Oh why the hell not?

[Irreverend IX]

7. Try editing the articles on "Jews" and "Negroes..."

Add some fun facts that will get Conservapedia mentioned in the next Southern Poverty Law Center bulletin. Also try sneaking some pro-NAMBLA material into their sections on public education. "And perhaps the most vile debauchery of the public school system has been their sustained effort to suppress the most innocent and pure lovemaking between parents and their children."

[Prophet 451]

2. Let it die

When the site has openly, even proudly, displayed it's bias, no-one is going to take it seriously anyway. I'm still half-convinced that Conservapedia is one gigantic rib.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. I think some people have been writing parody articles

and seeing how outrageous they can get before the troglodytes even recognize that it is a parody.

[Cabcere]

4. I would totally be willing to place a bet

that whoever's behind this so-called "encyclopedia" would never have even CONSIDERED including this particular "historical quote of the day" before last November:

Historical Quote of the Day: "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Samuel Langhorne Clemens (Mark Twain), Following the Equator, ch. 8 (1897)

:eyes: Uh huh. "Fair and balanced," my left foot. I'm still not convinced this isn't a joke, though...although I do think that if Stephen Colbert were behind it, it would be better written. (Besides, he's already got Wikiality for that.)

:think: Hey, maybe we should start a "Librulpedia?" :P (Oh, wait...according to these loonies, that's what Wikipedia already is. Never mind.)

[Iris]

5. Librulpedia

"Hey, maybe we should start a "Librulpedia?" :P (Oh, wait...according to these loonies, that's what Wikipedia already is. Never mind.)"

ha! ha! That's because they consider any argument that includes facts and documentation to be "liberal"!

[Cabcere]

6. Darn reality

and its well-known liberal bias! ;)

[AtomicKitten]

8. shenanigans and tomfoolery might ensue

... except for the abuse and vandalism warnings which is unfortunate since
they are most certainly begging to be abused and vandalized.

Uncyclopedia is also a fun site.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page