Interesting...

[heltec]

Wow, look at this:

http://www.conservapedia.com/

The republican wikipedia? So a encyclopedia edited by anyone has a liberal bias? Cool. Im banned already, not that i would ever suggest anything...

[robattle]

oh damnit they took another one in.

[SmilezRoyale]

It's freedom of speech, if you don't apretiate what they're doing then make your own.

[Ravariel]

Didn't you know? Wikipedia is a part of the vast left-wing conspiracy to promote the gay agenda and make America fail in everything!

It's about time someone did what was right!

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

Why have the verifiable truth when you can have partisan speculations?

[IllustriousPotentate]

Wikiality in action.

[SmilezRoyale]

There's also the encyclopedia dramatica, and the unencyclopedia.

Alot of right wing individuals feel that the overwhelming majority of information sources are biased. But if it's an encyclopedia written purely by Conservatives then it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be no bias. Pay no attention to this; it's not worth your time. everyone has the right to say what they want, and everyone else has the right to ignore them.

[JakeHero]

At 7/11/07 08:52 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: There's also the encyclopedia dramatica, and the unencyclopedia.

I don't know about unencyclopedia, but encyclopedia dramatica is pretty funny. You guys should check out their section on newgrounds.

[SmilezRoyale]

Way too much porn on that website i'm afraid.

[Empanado]

You searched for furry
Jump to: navigation, search

There is no page titled "furry"

Oh thank God.

I apoligise but I'm slightly confused. Is this serious or satirical like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica?

If it's serious, I don't mind it, even being a left-winger.
If it's satirical, ok.

It looks serious to me, but I have a history of missing the point on stuff like this.

And to the poster regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica, I also love that website. Some of the articles are poorly written but some are hilarious, even the Newgrounds one. It's good to laugh at oneself once in a while.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 7/12/07 08:59 AM, Scarab-Stalk33r wrote: I apoligise but I'm slightly confused. Is this serious or satirical like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica?

It's serious.

Some of their rules:

"# When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE. "

Oh, and
"Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. The IP addresses of vandals will be reported to authorities. That includes your employer and your local prosecutor."

I don't see anything in here regarding such a situation.

[Eoewe]

You people are gullible.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 7/12/07 03:48 PM, Eoewe wrote: You people are gullible.

Care to demonstrate why?

Wikipedia entry.

I know Wikipedia isn't exactly a good source, but it says it's serious there so I'm going to believe that, and what I was already told in this thread for now.