Skip to content

Reflections of a working writer and reader




In an attempt to undermine Wikipedia, which it regards as “anti American, and anti-Christian“, there is now a conservative version, called (you guessed it) Conservapedia. (I won’t give you the link; believe me, you don’t want to visit).

Maxine, over at Petrona, has a wonderful sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect to find there.

And there is also this, from Conservapedia’s page on abortion:

The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies. However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This may be due to the profitability of selling fetal parts for Chinese medicine.

And towards the end of the Copernicus entry, there is a really nice surprise:

“To this day, most Protestant countries reject the Copernican theory.”


7 Responses to “Conservapedia”

  1. Robert says:

    Thanks, I’ll be sure to visit next time I get nostalgic for a little taste of the Dark Ages.

    jb says: Incredible this contemporary fascination with the medieval. Goodness knows I have many reservations about our own age, but to deliberately go backwards. That’s perverse.

  2. Maxine says:

    One can only hope that outrageous entries such as these are the work of the “liberal lefty” gremlins.

    jb says: I’m sure many of them are, Maxine. The pity is that you can’t always tell which is parody and which is actually meant.

  3. Dick says:

    I’m grateful to you, John, for withholding the url. The imp of perversity would have had me following it up & then I’d have had to kick the cat. It might be amusing, however, if you could, from time to time. give us a few extracts from some of the more risible entries.

    jb says: So, you’d rather it was our cat got the kick, Dick? (Hey, look at that, I’m a poet.)

  4. Lee says:

    The real problem I see here is that we’re all busy patting ourselves on the back for being so clever or rational or whatever – members of the ‘good guys’ club – without actually engaging with those who think this way. Obviously, I don’t mean the ones who are parodists. And when we do chance to engage, it often becomes a bashing match in which neither side understands the other or learns something.

    jb says: I can see what you’re getting at here, Lee. But isn’t this touching on the real problem of fundamentalism. That it is almost impossible to engage with its adherents without surrendering the right to have independent thoughts?

  5. Pearl says:

    It is almost inevitable. Setting up a parallel shop is a peaceable solution between the two solitudes.

    jb says: I understand inevitability, Pearl. I’m not sure that these two reflect each other.

  6. mandrill says:

    Conservapedia has to be satire. There is no other explanation for the utter stupidity it spouts. If however it is not, and people actually believe the rubbish contained in its pages, then it is doing a bang up job of showing the religious right in exactly the light they deserve. I still think it has to be a joke though.

    jb says: I suspect it is deadly serious, but that some ‘other’ mischievous people have added a few jokes.

  7. Pi says:

    Rationalwiki has a pretty good assesment of Conservapedia as well as a hilarious Best of…