As has already been said, one wonders why you aren't on Wikipedia trying to constructively argue your case and improve the articles to the benefit of all, rather than running off to make a page devoted to criticising it in the apparent hopes of destroying a useful educational tool.

If this is how all conservatives react upon seeing something they disapprove of, that might explain why you see liberal bias in Wikipedia: because "your side" are either too lazy or eager for attention/controversy to actually contribute in any way.

Of course, luckily for Wikipedia, this *isn't* how all conservatives react.

This post isn't about Conservapedia per se. It's about the reaction to it, and it's about bias at Wikipedia. Check out the latter's CFR article for another example of WP's sterling ability to ferret out the true story.

its all about money

I think I've seen two pages at CP, other than screenshots of pages that had been vandalized.

Well. That's evidence of the high standards of conservative scholarship right there. No wonder you felt compelled to write this blistering critique of liberals.

I didn't say editing was "almost exclusively done by liberal college students". It's a matter of numbers: if 1,000,000 people edit WP, and 700,000 of them lean left, then they're going to have to be very, very careful to make sure that WP doesn't lean left.

I think I've seen two pages at CP, other than screenshots of pages that had been vandalized. If people can't register, perhaps it's because of the vandalism or a technical issue.

Ok, TLB, answer me this. If editing wikis is something that's almost exculusively done by liberal college students, do you feel this way about Conservapedia also? That annoys me quite a bit;I actually have edited wikipedia on occassion and have found no problem in doing so, that is, when I explain my changes in a calm, non-accusatory manner. There wasn't wikipedia around when I was in college, but I would have started editing it then, even though I was conservative both then and now(I don't change with the seasons like a lot of people do).

Nonetheless, the issue at hand is Conservapedia. Why are you dodging the fact that it can't be edited? I wanted to give the site a shot, but apparently no one is allowed to register. Don't you feel frustrated by that?

Thank goodness for Conservapedia, which doesn't have any bias at all, and operates under the strictest standards of scholarship.

In the real world, attempts to correct bias go to the "fittest", i.e., those with the most desire and time. That tends to favor those who are younger (i.e., high school and college students and such), and those people tend to be more "liberal".

While I certainly haven't done the best job at laying out what's wrong at WP (wait for the new site), in the meantime you can review the history of Antonio Villaraigosa's entry at WP, referenced above. In 2005 I did attempt to add factual, material information which was missing, and that was removed three times. The user who removed that factual information even referenced the upcoming elections. Search for "slanted campaign-related edits" on the history page for AV's entry. I don't think that it was "slanted", but that editor could certainly have kept the facts and removed the "slanted" bits. He removed everything, and his edits stuck for a long time.

Oh and how about, intead of "working on a site that will show more examples of bias", you just go to Wikipedia and CORRECT the bias? Are you not aware of how Wikis work? Go correct the bias.

See that's why Wikipedia successed, while Conservapedia will be a briefly-joked about flash in the pan. Wikipedia corrects bias because bias from one side will be deleted, and countered by bias from the other side, which will be deleted...leaving only the facts, the part EVERYONE can agree on, the truth.

Wackjob; the fundamental problem with your "bias" claims is that the Wikipedia can be edited by anyone to correct that bias. The conservapedia can't. It's that simple. So let's look - any human being, left, right, or middle of the road, can create and edit articles in Wikipedia. But only a very limited, American, Christian subset of conservatives can edit articles in the Conservapedia. Now look me in the eye and tell me which one will be more biased.

I mention three examples of "liberal" bias above: Villaraigosa, Media Matters, and Torres. For the first, see the link. For the second, see the history (2005?) where an example of them getting it wrong was deleted, and see the current entry which reads like a press release. For the latter, see the post which details a three month period where highly material negative information was missing from his entry.

I'm also working on a new site which will provide more examples of long-term bias.

First of all, you failed to actually point out how Wikipedia has a liberal bias. (which doesn't suprise me, as anyone, even a conservative, is allowed to edit the articles. The fact that they're too lazy to do so isn't the fault of the Wiki structure.)

Second, what do you think about the fact that Conservapedia is broken- it won't let people even sign up to edit it, which defeats the entire purpose of it?