Are we serious here or are we joking? It should be easy to tell.

The symbol of Conservapedia

This part of the article is serious.

Content-type: Unintentional Satire?

Conservapedia is a glorified blog by Andrew Schlafly that masquerades as a Trusworthy "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Being created as a response to Wikipedia's claimed "liberal bias" (also known as "Reality"), the Website tries to tell the World the Conservative (American) version of our reality. Currently it serves as both a blog from which Andy Schlafly and the other Sysops broadcast their beliefs, and a service on which Andy's homeschool course homeworks and tests are given -- thus embarrassing not only the editors of their Wiki, but also the students that Andy homeschools.

Conservapedia is the sworn enemy of Liberapedia.

Conservapedian view of the world

Soapbox.gif CAUTION: The following section contains subjective opinion on the matter. Conservatives and those with high blood pressure are advised to proceed carefully.

Conservapedia The Right Hates Science

The Young Turks -- The right hates science...

According to an LA Times interview with Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia was created after one of his homeschool students used BCE instead of BC in an assignment[1] -- which already tells us a lot about what Conservapedia is supposed to be.

In their crusade to get rid of liberal bias, the editors on Conservapedia seem to have also gotten rid of objective truth and common sense, as the website heavily supports Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, and other pseudo-scientific theories.

Sometimes the Conservapedian view of reality makes even less sense, as may be seen, for example, in the articles on the Theory of relativity[2] and the E=mc²[3] formula, the former inexplicably related to moral relativism.

The things become even weirder when The Bible is mentioned. For example, their article on action at a distance[4] mentions two of Jesus's miracles as "instant," claiming this runs contrary to the theory of relativity.

Even conservative commenters have been disgusted by Conservapedia's inherent far-right bias[5].

This has led to many believing that Conservapedia is only a parody; however, given its history and owner, this theory is problematic. Very many parodists edit at Conservapedia, and parody creeps in despite h the owner's and sysops' attempts to prevent it.

Surprisingly enough, Wikipedia would be, if anything, biased towards libertarianism, not liberalism -- its owner, Jimmy Wales, is a self-identified libertarian and Objectivist.

The most well-known project on Conservapedia is, of course, the Conservative Bible Project -- an attempt to, unsurprisingly, get the "liberal distortion" out of the Holy Bible.

Conservapedia has also made a list of the "worst college majors" -- a list that includes psychology, environmental science, English literature, wildlife management, creative writing, film, philosophy, journalism and architecture, and is topped by women's studies (which, for some reason, is number one while puppetry is at number six).

Its most heavily viewed pages are about such topics as homosexuality, Wikipedia, and Adolf Hitler. It also has a page on "Conservapedia proven right." Narcissism much?


Conservapedia was started in early 2006. At first, it was mainly written by home-schooled creationist children, making it little better than ... well. (Those sad little home-schooled children will most likely suffer all their lives because of their poor education.)

The site became more famous than it ever deserved to be when progressives discovered it and trolled it. Progressives began vandalizing it and linking to it from blogs urging people to vandalize or debate with them. This almost certainly accounted for better than two-thirds of the hits Conservapedia got at that point.

Later, some scientifically-minded people began trying to inject scientific truth into the site, but it soon ran afoul from Conservapedia's blocking policy (IF <username> INSERT <leftist bull> OR INSERT <centrist bull>, BLOCK <username>) (that was pseudocode, but less pseudo than some of the info on that site). Evolution became a battle-ground topic, followed by doughnuts. But the scientists could not hold the line, because, although they had the rational arguments, Andrew Schlafly had the all-powerful blocking shovel. Schlafly, aided by the late TK exiled them in what became known as the "Night of the Blunt Knives".

Some of those editors involved have started their own wikis, such as RationalWiki and the original Liberapedia, both of which strive to restore the balance of information and fight for protecting truth on the Internet.

what Google thinks of Conservapedia

Meanwhile, Conservapedia continues on its own path of Biblical literalism and republicanism, making it a source of "truth" and hilarity.

The "Educational" Value of Conservapedia

The man himself, Andrew Schlafly

"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure"- Mark Twain

Conservapedia is where facts go to die. Conservapedia, like any Encyclopedia (especially those using the open-editing wiki format), is prone to errors. And, when an encyclopedia actually tries to reject professional expertise, the errors become inevitable. There are plenty of reasons to argue that Conservapedia is actually far inferior to Wikipedia and that its articles are not to be trusted. Conservapedia's math and history articles have been criticized for a plethora of errors [6], while a numerical comparison of Conservapedia articles with articles in Wikipedia has shown Conservapedia's articles to be lagging in both quantity and quality.[7]

Conservapedia folks imagine they could actually surpass the folks at Wikipedia in terms of accuracy, coverage, and comprehensiveness. After all, founder Andrew Schlafly did intend it to be a homeschooling tool -- something that universities and schools do not believe Wikipedia is worthy of. However, it appears that (from the wonderfully compact size of blurbs they steal from Conservapedia only to be extended and refuted on RationalWiki) Conservapedia is too retarded to work for education. They frequently censor users who present evidence that is against their views, and Schlafly fails utterly at spelling.

Blocking Policy

On Conservapedia, you can be blocked for...

...using the wrong sort of English (i.e. using words that you learned after preschool or using anything other than American English)
...questioning the opinions of the admins. (Don't expect to receive answers to these questions, anyway.)
...registering under a username that an admin disagrees with. That used to mean anything that doesn't praise Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, God or Jesus. Now that means anything except a Christian name and the first letter of a second name -- even though a lot of active users have names that don't fit this rule, such as "ASchlafly", "Conservative" or "TK". (What to do when a user with the same first name and last initial has already registered isn't mentioned.)
...trying to discuss ways to improve Conservapedia
...not believing in God
...having a friend who is not Christian
...admitting to using birth control or condoms
...revealing that Fox News isn't as "Fair and Balanced" -- even though some editors actually believe Fox News is liberally biased(!).
...understanding that the American government was wrong about Iraq; Conservapedia pretends you're lying
...knowing that the French are not complete idiots; they are far less silly than Conservatives
...saying that the UK was a strong nation during WWII and that the United States of America wasn't necessarily the best of them all
...realizing that Christianity, a religion that says you should not kill, has caused millions of people to die over the last thousand years (Crusades, Inquisitions, Lynchings, Holocausts, etc.)
...making a typo in your edit
...mentioning FBI anywhere (see here)
...making Karajou, who's basically Andy's second-in-command, angry.  He won't even let your talk page comments stay. [8] [9]

Note: If you question Andy, he will brand you as a Liberal. Perfectly sane people understand that questioning is at the heart of Democracy, but Andy prefers obedience from all.

Note: On Conservapedia, it is even possible to reach a state of limbo, in which you are not blocked but are not allowed to edit any pages. This will occur if you have a Conservapedia account from which you don't speak your mind (which would lead to the usual block) and which you use to correct the frequent grammar/spelling errors that tend to crop up when Conservapedians edit their beloved site and call it "trustworthy." It is possible that this will only occur if you are logged in from said valid account from an IP that has previously been banned and many important Internet Service Providers are range blocked.

What to do if they block you

  • Join Liberapedia
  • Join RationalWiki
  • Join Wikipedia
  • Write about what's wrong with Conservapedia at the three above Wikis. (For Wikipedia, it would be a better option to express yourself on the user page.) They can't block you for what you write out of the Conservapedia blocking shovel's reach. They can't revert it either, that's cool.

After you have joined the three aforementioned wikis, take the following steps, which will work provided your Internet Service Provider gives you a dynamic IP Adress:

  1. Log out of Conservapedia.
  1. Unplug the router from the wall and go to sleep. Alternatively, switch off the router. Wait a minute or so. Switch it back on. That changes a dynamic IP Address. Some Internet Service Providers change your IP every few hours. Others change the IP every time you switch off.
  2. Wake up in the morning, walk downstairs in your jammies, and drink a steamy cup of hot cocoa. Be sure to include marshmallows.
  3. Replug router to the wall and look at your new IP address. Alternatively, look at your new IP Adress a minute after you switched the router back on.
  4. Go back to Confarceapedia Conservapedia with a sockpuppet and let MAndy, Ed Poop, Bungler, and JPratt know what you think of them.
  5. Wait for blocking.
  6. Repeat as needed.
  7. ????
  8. PROFIT!!!!

Note that Conservapedia has restarted using range blocks. The above may not work as well as it used to.
If you have a static IP Adress or if you are range blocked, or if you don't want to be range blocked, look for proxies. However, most proxies have been blocked, so the absolute best tool is Tor. Tor is a dynamic IP that no block, range, IP, or username can stop.

Conservapedia says:

All of these need citations!

  1. All kangaroos are descended from a single pair who were on Noah's Ark[10].
  2. Einstein's General Relativity "has nothing to do with physics"[11].
  3. Only followers of Christianity are capable of religious faith[12].
  4. Atheists are incapable of being moral[13].
  5. Some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals[14].
  6. There were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark[15].
  7. The Earth is the center of the universe(not exactly)[16]
  8. McCarthyism was good.
  9. Belief in the Theory of Relativity leads to a belief in moral relativity (a bad thing)[17].
  10. Dinosaurs are "often believed" to be extinct[18].
  11. "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in Hell."
  12. Homosexuality can cause bad smoking habits[19].
  13. HUSSEIN Obama has not provided a birth certificate. (It's Hussein now. Edit and you will be removed!)
  14. No one believes that the Christian God has ever killed anyone.
  15. Hitler was "an evolutionary racist"[20]
  16. Conservapedia's commandments explicitly forbid using BCE and CE, preferring BC and AD instead.
  17. JFK and George Orwell were conservatives.[21]
  18. Earth must be young since its land is sinking into the sea at a relatively fast rate, using a Global Warming article as source (sea level rise).[22]
  19. Liberals deny they are liberal (Thereby creating a paradox in which all sysops of Conservapedia are in fact liberals).  [23]
  20. Church and State should be unified, in direct violation of the First Amendment.
  21. Nazism is liberal.
  22. Obama is a Muslim.[24]


Inserting irrefutable facts as facts are considered vandalism at Conservapedia. In fact, most of Conservapedia's vandalism is actually people removing blatant falsehoods and misrepresented facts, which is complete utter Bull$#!+.


There is a myriad of examples of censorship on Conservapedia.

Mention of RationalWiki is strictly forbidden. On this link, you can see JPatt (Conservapedia's security guard) deleting JewishConservative's (Conservapedia user) user page content which mentions RW.

After that, JewishConservative asks JPatt why he deleted the mention of RW on his page and whether sysops are allowed to do that. JPatt answers him by saying that is a rule (...Mentioning those rats is forbidden here... it is a rule.). JewishConservative asks him to post a link to the rule that forbids the mention of RW. JPatt replies that is an unwritten rule.

If you don't believe this occurred, well... I'm going to supply you with a link.

Then, in order to help, TK tells JC to check out Conservapedia:Administrators Administrators and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. However, there is still nothing there that mentions anything about the sysops' right to remove the mentions of RW.

Suggested Course of Action

Note: When it's bedtime in America, Conservapedia disallows edits, claiming that "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit". If you're outside the United States, you don't count as far as Andrew Schlafly is concerned, and you must wait until someone has woken up over there and you re allowed edits again.

Don't Go To Conservapedia Any More.

Except for five things:

  1. Comedic relief. But even then, on any given page there is a 30% chance of headdesk from loss of faith in humanity.
  2. To support the Liberal Revolution against Conservapedia! If you want to join in, simply create an account. It should NOT contain the word Liberal or anything that is liberal-y. Instead, place words that inspire "warm fuzzies" in Conservatives, such as JesusLover4evr or ReaganResurrected. Or choose something simple that won’t attract attention. At the moment Conservapedia insists on a first name with the first letter of a second name in capitals. So just choose a nice-sounding Christian first name. It can be your real sex or the other sex. That way, they won't suspect a thing, and they will be stunned when you start to VANDALIZE!! Those old church ladies will never defeat the amazing powers of mass spam, and perhaps break a hip when trying to fix it! They will be resigned when you start to VANDALIZE!! They get more vandalism than other contributions.
  3. You might be a diabolical reader who knows how to internet-method-act. If so, they make a perfectly innocuous username on CP, make perfectly innocuous mainspace edits, and don't put anything inflammatory on your user page. Then IMITATE ANDY and use such methods as the Schlafly Reversal and the Schlafly Liberalator and protect the "truth" in key debates. Don't EVER question Andy. Do this for a year or so, adding content and bashing "liberals" using "logic," and perhaps Andy will make you a sysop. When he promotes you, be sure to thank Andy profusely, then send our warm fuzzy notices to the other admins. Wait for one to two days to do perfectly normal Conservapedia sysop-type things, such as making full use of the Schlafly Rearguard. Then... GO INSANE! PROTECT EVERYTHING! BLOCK EVERYONE! SPAM THE ADMINS! It'll be the ultimate vengeance! You'll be welcomed into Liberapedia with fanfare. RationalWiki will celebrate you as a hero. Start right away! But don't do anything malicious, or you might just get "referred to the authorities." DON'T EVER MENTION THE FBI INCIDENT.
  4. Edit some obscure articles and indirectly indicate that the Earth is older than twice the bristlecone pine tree's lifespan. NEVER question God's existence, even though we know there is no God (at least in the way as conservatives see it). You will be forming "islands of safety", places where Conservapedia is true.
  5. If you dare, go on Talk Pages and support the other liberals.  Just don't attack Karajou, he reverts whatever gets in his way of appearing to be a right-winged saint.  And know that he might revert it.  Also, know that they have a very stupid 90/10 rule that could get you blocked for not editing enough articles.


Conservapedia is riddled with sad hypocrisy. Click here to view the article.

Racism and sexism

Because blacks and females are statistically more progressive than conservative, Conservapedia appears racist. Their article on Barack Obama refers to him as the first "Affirmative Action" President. The article on Condoleezza Rice, however, takes a very positive view of her, with absolutely zero criticism. It appears that Conservapedia focuses more on slandering the Democrats and supporting the Republicans than being racist/sexist, as they never complain about Rice being black.

On the other hand, they really can't stand Muslims, claiming that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims", and include "Osama bin Laden" in the "Notable Muslim" list.

Andrew Schlafly went to university with Obama and outsiders can only guess at what resentments have been festering for decades over that. See Barack Obama compared to Andrew Schlafly. Conservapedia was created around the time that people were beginning to notice that Obama might run for President.

Also, Concrap... I mean Conservapedia recently added an "Ethnic Groups" photo gallery. Now you can view every single one of God's creations!

Supreme disdain for the letter "U"

In England and Canada, words such as "color" and "humor" are spelled with extra u's; "colour" and "humour." While Liberapedia accepts this, as several editors here are British, "English-English" spellings on Conservapedia are classed as anti-American. This also applies to spellings using the letter s rather than z, as in "organisation" rather than "organization." It is believed this stems from the editors' beliefs that the letters "U" and "S" should not be used excessively without the letter "A", thus completing the abbreviation: USA.

Young Earth Creationist View on Conservapedia

Young Earth Creationists believe Conservapedia is run by a coterie of ultra-liberal conservationists determined to drive conservatives away from religion with an editorial policy that ensures every article on the site makes out that all Christians are irrational airheads. The YEC community also believes that the liberal deceit in every article on the site is designed to persuade conservatives that homeschooling inevitably produces illiterate fanatics. Prominent spokespeople for the YEC and Homeschooling movement have pointed to passages in Revelations that predict an evil twin will be created as a mirror image of The One True Wikipedia for the purpose of leading the faithful astray and into the clutches of the Evil One.

Notable Subtleties

Sometimes NeoconPedia isn't so obvious with its rants. The Article on Jew has a section called "Life Cycle", as if they are talking about a species of animal. Going around calling Jews animals may be biologically true, but it appears derogatory and racist. We at Liberapedia wonder whether Conservapedia realises all Humans are animals.

The article on Ramadan states that many Muslims "spend several hours praying and studying the [[Qur'an;;," implying excessive devoutness. Christians that go to church several times a week and study the Bible aren't excessively devout, are they?

The Hitler article slanders the theory of evolution.
Using even more faulty Conservative logic, Conservapedia blames the United States' "early" loss in the Round of 16 at the World Cup on "feminism having eliminated soccer at Division I colleges." Rather than trying to scapegoat women, we at Liberapedia know the real answer: America has consistently fared better in baseball than soccer.[1]

Infiltration of Liberapedia

This site has been harassed by Conservapedia spies such as A-Z who briefly masqueraded as a former member named WaxPlanck. Cocaine Mitch was the predecessor of A-Z and was a commentary troll who was eventually banned around the same time that A-Z moved from commentary sections on political pages to harassing Proxima Centauri directly.

See also

External links