In a surprisingly knee-jerk reaction to what it perceives as “liberal bias” from the editors of the online knowledge behemoth, US religious activists have, apparently without any irony, set up

The founders of the aptly named site claim that it offers a “much needed alternative” to the hugely popular wikipedia which, they claim, is “increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American.” I’d prefer to think of it as pro-truth.

These people complain that their efforts to edit the open, public wikipedia are censored without pause. Andy Schlafly, the main founder of conservapedia, said, “I’ve tried editing wikipedia, and found that the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views.” He also complains at the prevalence of British spelling over ‘American English’ (no, really!) and says that “facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored”. I suggest Mr Schlafly approaches the scientific community with his “facts” as that community is one that is always ready to reassess their theories and would gladly look at any facts he had to offer.

Interestingly (and admittedly on a slight tangent), Schlafly is the son of Phyllis Schlafly, famous for her opposition to feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment. She had no right to stand in opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. She should learn her place and refrain from forming dangerous female opinions.

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of wikipedia, has no real issue with conservapedia. “Free culture knows no bounds,” he said. Good lad.

The front page of conservapedia includes the line:

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America.

Yep, there’s nothing we need to add to that.

EDIT: I should have added this link from conservapedia – a full list of examples of bias on wikipedia. Hilarious stuff!

Also, check out this link – the wikipedia entry on conservapedia.