Hubbry Logo
ConservapediaConservapediaMain
Open search
Conservapedia
Community hub
Conservapedia
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Conservapedia
Conservapedia
Conservapedia
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Conservapedia (/kənˌsɜː(r)vəˈpiːdiə/; kən-SU(R)-və-PEE-di-ə) is an English-language, wiki-based, online encyclopedia written from a self-described American conservative[2] and fundamentalist Christian[3] point of view. The website was established in 2006 by American attorney and activist Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly,[4][5] to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias on Wikipedia.[6][7] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system for content generation.

Key Information

Examples of Conservapedia's ideology include its accusations against and strong criticism of former US president Barack Obama—including advocacy of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories[8]—along with criticisms of atheism, feminism, homosexuality, the Democratic Party, and evolution. Conservapedia views Albert Einstein's theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[9] claims that abortion increases risk of breast cancer, praises Republican politicians, supports celebrities and artistic works it believes represent moral standards in line with Christian family values, and espouses fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism.[10][11] Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced retranslation of the English-language Bible which the site says to be "free of corruption by liberal untruths."[12]

Conservapedia has received negative reactions from the mainstream media and political figures,[13][14] and has been criticized by liberal and conservative critics alike for bias and inaccuracies.[15][16]

As of October 2025, Conservapedia has more than 58,000 articles and 24 active users.[17]

Background

[edit]
Andrew Schlafly
Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly in 2007

Conservapedia was created in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard and Princeton-educated attorney.[5] He established the project after reading a student's assignment written using the Common Era notation rather than Anno Domini.[18] Interviewed by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly said he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast", but became concerned about bias after other Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to an article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.[13] Schlafly expressed the hope Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived in Wikipedia.[6][15][19]

The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum organization, uses material for online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.[7][20][21] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.[21]

Running on MediaWiki software,[4][7] the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest articles dating from November 22.[6][7][19] By January 2012, Conservapedia contained over 38,000 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.[22] Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include links to news articles and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.[23] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages.[15][24] It was, at one point, the most-viewed page on the site.[25]

Editorial viewpoints and policies

[edit]

Conservapedia has editorial policies designed to prevent vandalism and what Schlafly sees as liberal bias. However, although the site's operators claim that the site "strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts, which often back up conservative ideas more than liberal ones",[26] according to The Australian, "arguments are often circular", and "contradictions, self-serving rationalizations and hypocrisies abound."[26]

Comparison to Wikipedia

[edit]

Shortly after its launch in 2006, Schlafly described the site as being competition for Wikipedia, saying "Wikipedia has gone the way of CBS News. It's long overdue to have competition like Fox News."[27] Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia. Articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as criticism of its alleged liberal ideology and moderation policies.[15]

The site's "Conservapedia Commandments"[28] differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include following a neutral point of view[29] and avoiding original research.[30][31] In response to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated: "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader",[6] and "Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob."[14]

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian, Schlafly stated: "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds—so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."[19] On March 7, 2007, Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly argued that the article on the Renaissance does not give sufficient credit to Christianity, that Wikipedia articles apparently prefer to use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly. Schlafly also claimed that Wikipedia's allowance of both Common Era and Anno Domini notation was anti-Christian bias.[32][33][34]

Licensing of content

[edit]

Conservapedia allows users to "use any of the content on this site with or without attribution." The copyright policy also states: "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees." It also does not permit "unauthorized mirroring."[35] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has raised concerns about the fact that the project is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a similar copyleft license, stating that "[p]eople who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results."[15]: 4 

Vandalism

[edit]

The site has stated that it prohibits unregistered users from editing entries due to concerns over vandalism, disruption or defamation. Brian Macdonald, a Conservapedia editor, commented that vandalism was intended to "cause people to say, 'That Conservapedia is just wacko.'" According to Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times, Macdonald spent many hours every day reverting "malicious editing." Vandals had inserted "errors, pornographic photos and satire." For example, U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was said to be "a strong supporter of torture as a law enforcement tool for use against Democrats and third world inhabitants."[18]

Other editorial policies

[edit]

Conservapedia states on its "Manual of Style" page that "American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome." It prefers that articles about the United Kingdom use British English, while articles about the United States use American English, to resolve editorial disputes.[36] Initially, Schlafly[13][37] and other Conservapedia editors[25] considered Wikipedia's policy allowing British English spelling to be anti-American bias.

The "Conservapedia Commandments" require edits to be "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" and that users make mostly quality edits to articles. Accounts that engage in what the site considers "unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits" may be blocked. The commandments also cite United States Code 18 USC § 1470 as justification for legal action against obscene, vandalism or spam edits.[38] Because of Schlafly's claim that Wikipedia's allowance of both Common Era and Anno Domini notation is anti-Christian bias,[32][33][34] the commandments disallow use of the former.[38]

Conspiracy theories

[edit]

Conservapedia promotes various conspiracy theories, such as the claim that the January 6 United States Capitol attack was staged by Antifa,[39] that the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump,[40] and that Michelle Obama is secretly transgender.[41] In addition, it supports the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama's published birth certificate was a forgery and that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii.[42]

It also describes Albert Einstein's theory of relativity as part of an ideological plot by liberals. Andy Schlafly claims that "virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible." and "cites passages in the Christian Bible in an effort to disprove Einstein's theories." Arizona Jewish Post described this argument as "conflat[ing] relativity, a theory in physics about time, space and gravity, with relativism, a philosophical argument about morality and human experience having nothing to do with physics."[43]

Conflicts with scientific views

[edit]

Various Conservapedia articles contradict established science. The Royal Society said of the website that "People need to be very careful about where they look for scientific information."[44] Conservapedia's critics voiced concern that children stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia's scientific content is accurate.[18] In 2011, skeptic Brian Dunning listed it as #9 on his "Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites" list.[45]

Creationism

[edit]
See also: Objections to evolution

Conservapedia promotes young Earth creationism, a pseudoscientific view that the Earth was created in 6 literal days approximately 6,000 years ago. Although not all Conservapedia contributors subscribe to a young-Earth creationist point of view, with the administrator Terry "TK" Koeckritz stating to the Los Angeles Times that he did not take the Genesis creation account literally,[18]: 9  sources have attributed the poor science coverage to an overall editorial support of the young-Earth creationist perspective and an over-reliance on Christian creationist home-schooling textbooks.[6][7] In an analysis in early 2007, science writer Carl Zimmer found evidence that much of what appeared to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory could be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Jay L. Wile.[46]

Evolution

[edit]

Conservapedia's article on evolution presents it as a naturalistic theory that lacks support and that conflicts with evidence in the fossil record that creationists perceive to support creationism.[47][48] The entry also suggests that sometimes (a literal reading of) the Bible has been more scientifically correct than the scientific community.[49] Schlafly has defended the statement as presenting an alternative to evolution.[6]

Environmentalism

[edit]

Conservapedia formerly described global warming as a "liberal hoax."[50][51]

Conservapedia included an entry on the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus, a 1998 internet hoax, with some readers being left unsure whether Conservapedia was being serious about the creature's existence.[52] Schlafly asserted that the article was intended as a parody of environmentalism.[14] By March 4, 2007, the entry had been deleted.[53]

Abortion

[edit]

Conservapedia asserts that induced abortion increases the risk of breast cancer,[54][55] while the scientific consensus is that there is no such association.[56][57]

Relativity

[edit]
See also: Criticism of the theory of relativity

Conservapedia has also been criticized for its articles regarding the theory of relativity, particularly on their entry titled "Counterexamples to relativity" which lists examples purportedly demonstrating that the theory is incorrect. Attention was drawn to the article by a Talking Points Memo posting that reported on Conservapedia's entry and stated that Schlafly "has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity."[58] New Scientist, a science magazine, criticized Conservapedia's views on relativity and responded to several of Conservapedia's arguments against it.[59] Against Conservapedia's statements, New Scientist stated that, while one is unlikely to find a single physicist who would claim that the theory of general relativity is the whole answer to how the universe works, the theory has passed every test to which it has been subjected.[59]: 1 

University of Maryland physics professor Robert L. Park has also criticized Conservapedia's entry on the theory of relativity, arguing that its criticism of the principle as "heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world" confuses a physical theory with a moral value.[60] Similarly, New Scientist stated at the end of their article:[59]: 2 

In the end there is no liberal conspiracy at work. Unfortunately, humanities scholars often confuse the issue by misusing the term "relativity." The theory in no way encourages relativism, regardless of what Conservapedia may think. The theory of relativity is ultimately not so much about what it renders relative—three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time—but about what it renders absolute: the speed of light and four-dimensional space-time.

In October 2010, Scientific American criticized Conservapedia's attitude towards the theory of relativity, assigning them a zero score on their 0 to 100 fallacy-versus-fact "Science Index", describing Conservapedia as "the online encyclopedia run by conservative lawyer Andrew Schlafly, [which] implies that Einstein's theory of relativity is part of a liberal plot."[61]

Another Conservapedia claim is that "Albert Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb", and that relativity had no practical applications.[14][16][32]

Ideology

[edit]

The Guardian has referred to Conservapedia's politics as "right-wing",[19] although it is sometimes described as far-right or New Right.[62][63][64] Journalist Leonard Pitts quoted it in a critical comment saying "You may judge Conservapedia's own bias by reading its definition of liberal."[65]

Partisan politics

[edit]

Schlafly said in an interview with National Public Radio that Wikipedia's article on the history of the Democratic Party is an "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson" and that this statement is "specious and worth criticizing."[6] He also has claimed that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public", a claim that has been labeled "sensational" by Andrew Chung of the Toronto Star.[15]

In 2007, John Cotey of the St. Petersburg Times observed that the Conservapedia article about the Democratic Party contained a criticism about the party's alleged support for same-sex marriage, and associated the party with the homosexual agenda.[66]

The Conservapedia entries on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama are critical of their respective subjects.[18] During the 2008 presidential campaign, its entry on Obama asserted that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." Some Conservapedia editors urged that the statement be changed or deleted, but Schlafly, a former classmate of Obama, responded by asserting that the Harvard Law Review, the Harvard University legal journal for which Obama and Schlafly worked together,[67] uses racial quotas and stated, "The statement about affirmative action is accurate and will remain in the entry."[68] In addition, Hugh Muir of The Guardian mockingly referred to Conservapedia's assertion that Obama has links to radical Islam as "dynamite" and an excellent resource for "US rightwingers."[69]

In contrast, the articles about conservative politicians, such as former U.S. Republican president Ronald Reagan and former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, have been observed as praising their respective subjects.[18][70] Mark Sabbatini of the Juneau Empire described the Conservapedia entry on Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate for the 2008 U.S. presidential election, as having been written largely by people friendly to its subject and avoiding controversial topics.[71]

Atheism

[edit]

The website sometimes adopts a strongly critical stance against figures whom it perceives as political, religious, or ideological opponents, often with an emphasis on atheists. For instance, in May 2009, Vanity Fair and The Spectator reported that Conservapedia's article on atheist Richard Dawkins featured a picture of Adolf Hitler at the top. The picture was later moved to a lower position in the article.[72][73]

Reception

[edit]

The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for numerous factual inaccuracies[16][44] and factual relativism.[16] Wired magazine observed that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers."[14] Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[32] Conservapedia has been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective,[4][14] and Theopedia, a wiki with a Reformed theology focus.[34] In 2007, Fox News obliquely compared it with other new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones at the time, such as MyChurch, a Christian version of the then-popular social networking site Myspace, and Godtube, a Christian version of video site YouTube.[74]

Tom Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about religion, specifically Christianity, than political or social conservatism and that it "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia" than Wikipedia itself.[15] Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians."[75] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[76] APC magazine perceives this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[49] Conservative Christian commentator Rod Dreher has been highly critical of the website's "Conservative Bible Project", an ongoing retranslation of the Bible which Dreher attributes to "insane hubris" on the part of "right-wing ideologues."[77]

The project has also been criticized for presenting a false dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism, as well as between Christian fundamentalism and atheism, and for promoting relativism with the implicit idea that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts."[16] Matthew Sheffield, writing in the conservative daily newspaper The Washington Times, argued that conservatives concerned about bias should contribute more often to Wikipedia rather than use Conservapedia as an alternative since he felt that alternative websites like Conservapedia are often "incomplete."[78] Author Damian Thompson asserts that the purpose of Conservapedia is to "dress up nonsense as science."[79]

Bryan Ochalla, writing for the LGBTQ magazine The Advocate, referred to the project as "Wikipedia for the bigoted."[80] On the satirical news program The Daily Show, comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality.[81] Writing in The Australian, columnist Emma Jane described Conservapedia as "a disturbing parallel universe where the ice age is a theoretical period, intelligent design is empirically testable, and relativity and geology are junk sciences."[26]

Opinions criticizing the site rapidly spread throughout the blogosphere around early 2007.[14][23] Schlafly appeared on radio programs Today on BBC Radio 4[37] and All Things Considered on NPR[6] to discuss the site around that time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC program The Hour for the same purpose.[82]

Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about Conservapedia.[18] Matt Barber, policy director for the conservative Christian political action group Concerned Women for America, praised Conservapedia as a more family-friendly and "accurate" alternative to Wikipedia.[83]

Wired magazine, in an article entitled "Ten Impressive, Weird And Amazing Facts About Wikipedia", highlighted several of Conservapedia's articles, including those on "Atheism and obesity" and "Hollywood values", amongst others. It also highlighted Conservapedia's "Examples of bias in Wikipedia" article, which encourages readers to contact Jimmy Wales and tell him to "sort it out."[84]

Conservapedia's use of Wikipedia's format to create a conservative Christian alternative encyclopedia has been mirrored by other sites, such as Godtube, QubeTV and MyChurch, which adopted the format of the more prominent YouTube and Myspace, respectively.[4][74][85]

Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales said about Conservapedia that "free culture knows no bounds" and "the reuse of our work to build variants [is] directly in line with our mission."[86] Wales denied Schlafly's claims of liberal bias in Wikipedia.[15]

In 2022, Slate noted that Conservapedia "has long floundered with minimal readership."[87]

RationalWiki

[edit]
Main article: RationalWiki

In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, attempted to edit Conservapedia's article on breast cancer to include evidence against Conservapedia's pseudoscientific claim that abortion increases risk of contracting it. Schlafly and Conservapedia administrators "questioned [Lipson's] credentials and shut down debate." After they were blocked, "Lipson and several other contributors quit trying to moderate the articles (on Conservapedia) and instead started their own website, RationalWiki."[18]

RationalWiki's self-stated purpose is to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "anti-science movement", and "crank ideas", as well as to conduct "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" and explore "how these subjects are handled in the media."[88][89]

RationalWiki is said to openly criticize Conservapedia, for a majority of reasons.[90]

An article published in the Los Angeles Times in 2007 alleged that RationalWiki members "monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engaged in acts of cyber-vandalism."[18]

Lenski dialogue

[edit]

On June 9, 2008, the New Scientist published an article describing Richard Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment, which reported that the bacteria had evolved, acquiring the ability to metabolize citrate.[91] Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Lenski explained that the relevant data was in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data. Lenski replied again that the relevant data was already in the paper, that the "raw data" were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit.[92] The Daily Telegraph later called Lenski's reply "one of the greatest and most comprehensive put-downs in scientific argument."[93]

The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia page entitled "Lenski dialog",[94] was widely reported on news-aggregating sites and web logs. Carl Zimmer wrote that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski's paper] closely",[95] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite having neither a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.[96] During and after the Lenski dialogue on Conservapedia, several users on the site were blocked for "insubordination" for expressing disagreement with Schlafly's stance on the issue.[97]

The dialogue between Lenski and Conservapedia is noted in Richard Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution in a chapter concerning Lenski's research.[98]

Conservative Bible Project

[edit]

Conservapedia hosts the "Conservative Bible Project", a project aiming to create a new English translation of the Bible in order to remove or alter terms described as importing "liberal bias."[99] The project intends to remove sections of the Bible which are judged by Conservapedia's founder to be later liberal additions.[12] These include the story of the adulteress in the Gospel of John in which Jesus declares "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."[99] The project also intends to remove Jesus's prayer on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing", since it appears only in the Gospel of Luke and since, according to Schlafly, "the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible."[99]

The Bible project has met with extensive criticism, including from fellow evangelistic Christian conservatives.[100][101] Rod Dreher, a conservative writer and editor, described the project as "insane hubris" and "crazy"; he further described the project as "It's like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'".[102] Ed Morrissey, another conservative Christian writer, wrote that bending the word of God to one's own ideology makes God subservient to an ideology, rather than the other way around.[103] Creation Ministries International wrote "Forcing the Bible to conform to a certain political agenda, no matter if one happens to agree with that agenda, is a perversion of the Word of God and should therefore be opposed by Christians as much as 'politically correct' Bibles."[104]

On October 7, 2009, Stephen Colbert called for his viewers to incorporate him into the Conservapedia Bible as a biblical figure and viewers responded by editing the Conservapedia Bible to include his name.[105][106] The edits were, as a matter of course, treated as vandalism and removed. This was followed by an interview between Colbert and Schlafly on December 8, 2009.[107]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Conservapedia

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Conservapedia is an English-language, wiki-based online encyclopedia founded on November 21, 2006, by attorney and educator , son of conservative activist , with assistance from students in his World History class. It operates as a conservative alternative to , explicitly adopting a viewpoint that credits and rather than feigning neutrality, while enforcing family-friendly policies such as prohibiting profanity and limiting certain liberal denominations. The project's inception stemmed from observations of systemic liberal bias in Wikipedia, corroborated by multiple studies documenting skewed content and editor demographics favoring left-leaning perspectives, including analyses showing consistent liberal slant in political articles and underrepresentation of conservative sources. Conservapedia's editing principles prioritize empirical conservatism, such as biblical accuracy over atheistic interpretations of , and include features like a vast collection of articles on and essays highlighting conservative innovations in language, media, and culture. Notable for initiatives like the Conservative Bible Project, which seeks a untainted by modern liberal influences, Conservapedia has maintained over 58,000 articles despite a small active editor base of around two dozen users, reflecting its niche role in providing counter-narratives to mainstream encyclopedic biases amid low overall traffic compared to dominant platforms. While criticized by left-leaning outlets for perceived inaccuracies reflective of its ideological stance, its persistence underscores a deliberate effort to foster viewpoint diversity in online knowledge repositories dominated by institutionally biased editing.

Founding and Early Development

Origins as Response to Perceived Bias

, a graduate, attorney, and conservative activist, established Conservapedia on November 21, 2006, explicitly as a counter to the liberal bias he observed in . , son of anti-feminist leader , had previously attempted to edit entries to incorporate conservative perspectives but encountered resistance from what he characterized as ideologically driven administrators who reverted changes and censored dissenting views. The initiative began as an educational tool for Schlafly's fall 2006 homeschool World History class, involving students in creating content that prioritized factual accuracy over what Schlafly deemed Wikipedia's atheistic and left-leaning distortions, particularly on topics like and social issues. He argued that Wikipedia's open-editing model, dominated by "liberal atheists lacking basic understanding of logic," resulted in imbalances such as the evolution article allocating twenty times more words to moths than to humans, reflecting a prioritization of unverified transitional claims over human-centric . Schlafly documented over 30 specific examples of Wikipedia's alleged biases, including sympathetic portrayals of , overuse of British spellings in American contexts, and downplaying of conservative critiques on issues like and global warming. In a , he emphasized the need for an providing "clear and concise answers" untainted by such influences, positioning Conservapedia as a alternative that encouraged conservative contributions to balance the perceived institutional skew in online knowledge dissemination. This origin reflected broader conservative frustrations with mainstream reference sources, where empirical challenges to prevailing narratives—such as arguments against Darwinian orthodoxy—were often marginalized.

Launch and Initial Growth

Conservapedia was launched on November 21, 2006, by , a homeschool , attorney, and son of conservative activist , in response to perceived liberal bias in . Schlafly, then 46 years old, initiated the project with his class of 58 homeschooled high school students enrolled in a course at University, encouraging them to contribute initial entries on topics they deemed underrepresented or misrepresented in mainstream sources. The site adopted a format but emphasized conservative principles, family-friendly content, and strict moderation to prevent what Schlafly viewed as leftist prevalent on . Early growth was modest and primarily driven by word-of-mouth within conservative circles, with Schlafly promoting it through his legal and educational networks. By March 2007, the encyclopedia had garnered media attention, including coverage in , which noted its mimicry of Wikipedia's self-correcting model while highlighting its ideological focus. Initial contributions focused on countering perceived biases, such as entries critiquing , , and liberal figures, attracting a niche audience skeptical of mainstream encyclopedias. However, user engagement remained limited compared to , reflecting its targeted appeal rather than broad adoption. By June 2009, Conservapedia reported approximately 31,000 content pages and 30,000 registered users, though active contributors numbered fewer than 200, indicating stagnant growth amid challenges like attempts and internal editorial controls. This period solidified its reputation as a conservative counterpoint, with early publicity from outlets like underscoring debates over bias in online knowledge bases, yet it struggled to scale beyond its core ideological base.

Editorial Framework

Core Policies and Guidelines

Conservapedia's core policies are codified in the Conservapedia Commandments, a set of seven foundational rules established by founder to prioritize factual accuracy, verifiability, and disciplined editing over the perceived and in competing encyclopedias. These commandments function as enforceable standards, with non-compliant edits subject to immediate deletion and repeated offenders facing account blocks, as stated explicitly on the site's policy page updated as of August 25, 2025. The rules emphasize original, sourced contributions while prohibiting reliance on external platforms like , reflecting a commitment to independent conservative . The first commandment mandates that "everything you post must be true and verifiable," explicitly barring the copying of content from or other sources unless it represents the editor's original creation, a measure aimed at preventing the importation of liberal biases observed in mainstream references. The second requires diligent citation of sources, even those in the , to uphold transparency and allow scrutiny of claims. Subsequent rules demand neutrality and objectivity in article edits, excluding personal opinions or unsubstantiated analysis except in explicitly opinion-based contexts, while prohibiting , , advertisements, spam, hoaxes, , and personal attacks or —offenses that carry legal repercussions under statutes like 47 USC § 223 for severe cases. The remaining commandments promote constructive participation, urging editors to focus on substantive improvements rather than or disruption, and to defer to site administrators in matters. This structure incentivizes high-quality, affirmative contributions aligned with Conservapedia's educational mission, contrasting with looser norms by treating violations as straightforward breaches rather than subjective disputes. Supplementary guidelines expand on these basics, recommending pseudonymous edits only when necessary and preferring usernames derived from real names to foster and good-faith . Additional practices include maintaining conciseness to counter "liberal wordiness," adhering to a manual of style for precise language (e.g., using BC/AD over BCE/CE), and prioritizing verifiable facts over interpretive excess. Administrators, empowered as sysops, apply these uniformly to moderate content and adjudicate conflicts, ensuring policies serve the site's conservative without arbitrary leniency.

Vandalism Prevention and Content Moderation

Conservapedia requires users to register an account before any content, a policy implemented to deter anonymous , disruption, and that plague open-editing platforms. This contrasts with more permissive wikis and enables tracking of user IPs, which administrators cite as essential for enforcing accountability. The site's "Commandments" provide concise guidelines prohibiting deceit, disruption, or promotion of liberal bias, with violations resulting in immediate deletion of offending edits and potential blocks for repeat offenders; these rules explicitly warn of legal penalties, including up to 10 years imprisonment for under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 and 2 years for under 47 U.S.C. § 223. Administrators, known as sysops, hold broad discretion to monitor recent changes, revert unauthorized alterations, and impose blocks ranging from temporary to indefinite, often extending to IP addresses to prevent circumvention. Pages prone to controversy are frequently locked to sysops only, minimizing edit wars and ideological insertions framed as , such as adding "nonsense, gibberish, or blanking content." Image uploads are restricted and protected from direct editing to block subversive overlays or replacements. Sysops prioritize rapid response, viewing attempts to insert perspectives conflicting with conservative principles—termed "liberal censorship"—as forms of disruption warranting swift intervention. Following media attention in 2007, Conservapedia endured a surge of coordinated attempts, prompting reinforced moderation protocols that have sustained low disruption rates relative to its traffic. While critics from left-leaning outlets allege overreach in blocking dissenting edits, site operators maintain these measures preserve factual integrity against systemic biases in broader academic and media sources, with appeals available via talk pages for legitimate contributors. Empirical tracking of edit histories supports claims of effective prevention, as sustained content stability persists despite external pressures.

Licensing and Accessibility

Conservapedia maintains a proprietary policy under law, holding ownership over contributed content while granting contributors an irrevocable waiver of personal copyright claims except for limited personal reuse rights. This approach contrasts with open licenses like Wikipedia's former GFDL or current CC-BY-SA, as Conservapedia's terms emphasize centralized control to align with its editorial standards. The site's license permits broad reproduction of content by users, described by founder as simpler and more permissive than Wikipedia's 3,200-word framework, allowing copying with or without attribution but revocable at the site's discretion to prevent perceived misuse. Permission for such use is automatic and irrevocable once granted, without requiring share-alike obligations, though commercial exploitation or violation of family-friendly guidelines may lead to enforcement actions. Content on Conservapedia is publicly viewable without registration or payment, accessible via standard web browsers on conservapedia.com since its launch in 2006. No subscription barriers exist, enabling global readership focused on conservative perspectives. Editing access requires user registration, with accounts granted selectively to those demonstrating adherence to site commandments, such as truthfulness, family-friendliness, and conservative alignment; unapproved or disruptive users face blocks. Initial editing privileges are limited—such as no nighttime (U.S. Eastern Time) edits to curb —and advanced rights like image uploads are reserved for proven contributors, differing from Wikipedia's more permissive model.

Distinctions from Wikipedia

Philosophical and Methodological Differences

Conservapedia's foundational philosophy emphasizes an explicit commitment to conservative principles and as guides to truth, rejecting Wikipedia's professed neutrality—which Conservapedia characterizes as a tolerance for , , and liberal that distorts facts. Whereas Wikipedia adheres to a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that permits a range of perspectives under the guise of balance, often resulting in the sanitization of terms (e.g., describing terrorist groups as "militants" rather than terrorists), Conservapedia prioritizes direct, value-laden language aligned with traditional moral clarity and rejects such euphemisms as obfuscating reality. This approach stems from founder Andrew Schlafly's critique that Wikipedia functions as a "hearsay society" influenced by secular , driving out conservative editors through rapid reversions of their contributions and systemic sanctions against them—evidenced by studies showing conservative Wikipedia editors face sanctions at rates up to six times higher than others. Methodologically, Conservapedia enforces a merit-based under Schlafly's oversight to maintain content integrity, contrasting Wikipedia's consensus-driven "mobocracy" where anonymous edits and group voting can amplify biases. It mandates authoritative sourcing, such as primary documents or biblical references, while prohibiting the presentation of journalistic opinions as undisputed facts—a common issue on , per Conservapedia's analysis. Original research is permitted if clearly labeled, promoting concise, educational entries free of "stub" distractions or verbose padding, and the site fosters debate through dedicated pages with light moderation to encourage viewpoint testing against facts. Vandalism prevention involves swift blocks based on an "edits to blocked editor accounts ratio" metric to quantify , avoiding 's tolerance for persistent disruption under the banner of openness. Family-friendly standards further differentiate it, barring or anti-intellectual content that permits, ensuring alignment with a that views unfiltered as corrosive to intellectual rigor. These divergences reflect Conservapedia's causal realism in attributing Wikipedia's shortcomings to institutional incentives favoring liberal conformity over empirical conservatism, as articulated by Schlafly since the site's 2006 launch in response to perceived exclusions of biblical and traditional perspectives. While Wikipedia's model relies on crowd-sourced verification from mainstream sources often critiqued for left-leaning skews in academia and media, Conservapedia's framework privileges first-hand evidence and moral absolutes to counteract what it terms an "atheist agenda" embedded in neutralist editing. This has led to specialized initiatives like quantifying bias through edit ratios, underscoring a methodological preference for proactive truth enforcement over passive accumulation of contested claims.

Handling of Debate and User Contributions

Conservapedia maintains a structured approach to user contributions, emphasizing adherence to its Commandments and guidelines to prevent perceived liberal biases and common in open platforms like . Users are encouraged to edit articles, essays, and debates provided contributions align with conservative principles and avoid unproductive activities such as disparagement or promotion of and without counterarguments. Edits violating these rules are promptly deleted, and repeated offenders face blocks, with administrators exercising broad discretion to protect pages, including temporarily disabling editing during off-hours unless granted to productive newcomers. This merit-based contrasts with 's consensus-driven model, which Conservapedia critiques as a "mobocracy" susceptible to majority liberal influences. In handling debates, Conservapedia permits any member of the public to initiate debate pages on diverse topics, fostering vigorous exchanges not formally supported by Wikipedia's policies. The platform hosts structured debates under categories like political issues, like "Conservative vs. Liberal," and theological questions, such as "If Jesus were alive today," where participants present arguments sequentially. Examples include debates on whether Conservapedia's self-acknowledged bias undermines its reliability, illustrating open critique within bounds of site rules. Moderation ensures debates remain productive, blocking trolls or off-topic disruptions, while prioritizing content that challenges mainstream secular or progressive narratives. This user-driven yet overseen format aims to counter what Conservapedia views as suppressed conservative viewpoints elsewhere, though critics argue it enforces ideological conformity over neutral discourse.

Ideological Foundations

Conservative and Biblical Worldview

Conservapedia integrates a with biblical principles, viewing the as the inerrant word of that informs moral, political, and scientific understanding. This perspective holds that biblical truths precede and correct secular interpretations often influenced by liberal biases in academia and media. Founder , a and son of conservative activist , has described as adhering to original intent in documents like the , aligning many of its concepts—such as and personal responsibility—with political . The site's core values emphasize promoting moral and economic principles beneficial to society, including voluntary charity over compelled redistribution, traditional structures, and rejection of . Articles frequently cite biblical passages to support claims, such as scientific foreknowledge in Scripture that anticipates modern discoveries, positioning the as a source of empirical insight overlooked by evolutionary theory and . This approach contrasts with mainstream encyclopedias by prioritizing faith-based , where God's and creation narrative form the basis for knowledge rather than atheistic . Content moderation reinforces this worldview through guidelines that discourage , evolutionist terminology without counterpoints, and liberal denialism, while encouraging contributions that highlight biblical literacy's role in human flourishing. For instance, the Conservative Bible Project seeks to translate Scripture free from perceived liberal corruptions, like or dilution of patriarchal elements, aiming for a version faithful to original conservative intent. Critics from secular outlets label this as fundamentalist bias, but proponents argue it restores truth suppressed by institutional left-leaning influences in publishing and education.

Positions on Politics and Culture

Conservapedia advocates a conservative political framework that prioritizes moral absolutes, individual responsibility, and resistance to expansive government roles in personal life. It defines as the promotion of values beneficial to society through voluntary action rather than , emphasizing adherence to laws that encourage uniformity in social conduct while permitting economic variation. The encyclopedia contrasts this with , which it depicts as favoring , via , and policies that undermine traditional institutions. In U.S. politics, Conservapedia endorses the Republican Party as a primary vehicle for conservative principles, including fiscal restraint and national , though it critiques internal factions such as for endorsing socially liberal positions and costly overseas engagements. It portrays the Democratic Party as intent on marginalizing opposition through institutional leverage, such as and taxation. Broader critiques extend to concepts like the "uniparty," which Conservapedia describes as an establishment mechanism blending both major parties under globalist influences to limit genuine policy divergence. Support for conservative populism highlights priorities like patriotism, , and reduced immigration. On cultural matters, Conservapedia opposes as a violation of life-affirming , documenting instances of political figures' shifts away from pro-life commitments. It rejects , arguing that the term "marriage" applies exclusively to heterosexual unions rooted in religious traditions and that such arrangements contradict social conservative standards. The site attributes contemporary cultural decay to "cultural ," a allegedly repurposed by disillusioned Marxists to erode Western norms through and identity-focused ideologies like "wokeism." Conservapedia also identifies systemic liberal biases in media and academia, which it claims distort public discourse on these issues.

Critiques of Atheism and Secularism

Conservapedia argues that atheism inherently lacks a foundation for objective morality, leading to ethical and an inability to establish coherent moral systems. Without a divine or transcendent authority, atheists purportedly rely on subjective preferences, which Conservapedia contends fails to provide universal standards against behaviors like or theft. This perspective aligns with critiques from figures like , whom Conservapedia references in highlighting atheism's moral inconsistencies, such as justifying actions based on evolutionary utility rather than absolute right and wrong. The encyclopedia associates atheism with historical atrocities under atheistic regimes, including the under and under , where state-enforced atheism contributed to the deaths of tens of millions through purges, famines, and genocides. Conservapedia estimates over 100 million victims of atheistic in the , attributing these to the absence of religious checks on power and the elevation of materialistic ideologies. It further claims that atheist societies exhibit higher rates of societal dysfunction, citing correlations between low religiosity and elevated , depression, and family breakdown in secular nations like those in , though it acknowledges debates over causation. On scientific grounds, Conservapedia accuses militant atheists of suppressing evidence conflicting with , such as or biblical timelines, to preserve a naturalistic . Examples include historical dismissals of creationist arguments and modern resistance to critiques of evolutionary theory, which it portrays as akin to religious . is also critiqued for fostering dogmatism, with studies referenced showing atheists rating themselves as more open-minded but demonstrating bias against theistic perspectives in practice. Regarding secularism, Conservapedia views as an atheistic substitute for , emphasizing human centrality without and promoting "good without a " as per the American Humanist Association's motto. It criticizes this framework for encouraging self-centeredness, hedonism, and moral lapses, pointing to public statements by atheists like on bestiality tolerance and on incest as indicative of ethical voids. Societally, secular humanism is faulted for internal divisions, such as the 2009 ouster of from the Center for Inquiry, and declining influence, evidenced by reduced website traffic for humanist organizations around 2012. Conservapedia highlights trends, driven by higher fertility rates among religious populations and religious immigration, projecting a reversal of secular gains in the West by 2050.

Specialized Content Initiatives

Conservative Bible Project

The Conservative Bible Project (CBP) is an online initiative hosted on Conservapedia, launched in July 2009 by , to produce a revised English translation of the emphasizing conservative interpretive principles. It seeks to address perceived "liberal biases" in modern translations by building primarily on the King James Version (KJV), incorporating updates for clarity and ideological alignment, such as minimizing "pro-liberal" phrasing and favoring terms that align with traditional conservative values like and moral absolutes. The project's stated goals include rendering Scripture "without liberal denial" through crowd-sourced contributions from users, prioritizing conciseness over "liberal wordiness," and eliminating terms like "slave" in favor of "servant" to avoid connotations of victimhood, while amplifying expressions of , doubt, and reward. Methods involve collaborative online editing, where participants propose changes based on original language analysis, historical context, and conservative criteria, such as rejecting passages suspected of later if they conflict with doctrinal —for instance, questioning the authenticity of Luke 23:34 ("Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do") as a potential "liberal" addition not found in earliest manuscripts. The project also includes marginal notes asserting that terms translated as "dogs" in verses such as Deuteronomy 23:18, Philippians 3:2, Psalms 22:20, and Revelation 22:15 originally referred to homosexuals using Greek and Hebrew slang, which the project argues are mistranslated by liberals to conceal disparaging references. Examples of revisions include altering Matthew 5:39 from "turn the other cheek" to emphasize non-hypocritical resistance, and reducing forgiveness language in parables to highlight personal accountability, drawing from textual variants and KJV precedents. The approach claims advantages like accessibility via public input and avoidance of academic "corruption," but lacks formal involvement from trained biblical linguists or textual critics proficient in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Reception has been largely negative among biblical scholars and theologians across ideological spectra, who criticize the CBP for substituting ideological filtering over philological accuracy, potentially introducing bias akin to historical politically motivated redactions, such as those in slave-era Bibles omitting equality passages. Conservative Christian outlets have labeled it an "ungodly translation philosophy" reliant on unreliable methods and non-expert sources, arguing it politicizes divine text rather than preserving original intent. As of 2025, the project remains incomplete, with partial translations available online but minimal adoption beyond Conservapedia's user base.

Essays and Counter-Narratives

Conservapedia maintains a collection of essays that articulate conservative critiques of prevailing cultural, political, and intellectual narratives, often framing them as responses to perceived liberal dominance in media, academia, and entertainment. These essays, categorized under topics like and liberal bias, aim to highlight instances of , , and ideological distortion in mainstream sources, proposing conservative alternatives grounded in biblical principles and empirical skepticism toward progressive claims. For instance, essays enumerate specific works in and that allegedly propagate anti-conservative themes, such as promotion of or disdain for traditional values, while compiling parallel lists of conservative exemplars. One prominent series critiques liberal media products, identifying titles like Karl Marx's as foundational to ideologies responsible for historical atrocities, including communist regimes that resulted in tens of millions of deaths, and contemporary that endorses through character justifications of violence. Similarly, essays on films and television decry productions that attribute societal ills to conservative institutions, such as military or traditional politics, while overlooking liberal contributions to cultural decay; examples include analyses of episodes or series that normalize or critique . These critiques extend to linguistic evolution, with documenting "best new conservative words" like "counterproductive" applied to liberal policies, arguing that conservative terminology arises more rapidly and substantively than liberal counterparts, reflecting deeper alignment with observable outcomes. Counter-narratives in these essays also address historical and scientific topics, challenging orthodoxies like the French Revolution's portrayal as purely progressive by emphasizing its descent into terror and bourgeois opportunism, countering Marxist interpretations that glorify class upheaval. Essays on dissect celebrity endorsements and media framing as tools for liberal agenda-setting, citing athletic or entertainment figures' statements as non-expert influences that prioritize ideology over evidence. Overall, this essay corpus positions Conservapedia as a repository for rebuttals to "liberal denial" on issues like biblical reliability and evolutionary theory, urging readers to prioritize primary sources and conservative insights over institutionally biased accounts.

Perspectives on Science and Society

Creationism Versus Evolutionary Theory

Conservapedia advocates for creationism as the accurate explanation of biological origins, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account in the Bible, positing that God created distinct kinds of life forms approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This young Earth creationism contrasts sharply with evolutionary theory, which Conservapedia characterizes as an unproven naturalistic hypothesis lacking direct observational support for macroevolutionary changes, such as the transformation of one species into another. The site maintains that while microevolution—small-scale variations within kinds, akin to natural selection—occurs and is observable, it does not account for the origin of new kinds or complex structures, asserting that mechanisms like mutations degrade genetic information rather than build it. Key critiques of evolutionary theory on Conservapedia include the absence of transitional fossils in the record, exemplified by the , where complex life forms appear abruptly without precursor forms, contradicting gradual evolutionary expectations. The site lists numerous "counterexamples to evolution," such as the irreducible complexity of cellular structures like the , which require all parts to function simultaneously and thus cannot evolve stepwise without intermediate utility. Additionally, Conservapedia highlights mathematical improbabilities, noting that the probability of a single functional protein forming by chance is on the order of 1 in 10^164, far exceeding random assembly possibilities within Earth's timeline. These arguments draw from creation scientists like those at the Institute for Creation Research, emphasizing empirical data over what the site views as academia's presuppositional commitment to , which biases interpretations of evidence toward despite anomalies. In support of creationism, Conservapedia cites geological features like widespread sediment layers and fossil graveyards as evidence of rapid, catastrophic formation consistent with Noah's Flood rather than uniformitarian processes required by old-Earth models. Radiometric dating methods are critiqued for inconsistent results and assumptions of constant decay rates, with examples of carbon-14 found in diamonds purportedly millions of years old, suggesting accelerated decay during the Flood. The site also references genetic evidence, such as shared DNA patterns better explained by a common designer than , and the rapid diversification post-Flood as observed in adaptive radiations. Founder has publicly debated evolutionists, including in exchanges questioning experimental validations like Richard Lenski's E. coli study, arguing it demonstrates adaptation within limits rather than novel evolution. Conservapedia frames the debate as not merely scientific but worldview-driven, contending that evolutionary theory functions as a secular ideology promoting atheism and undermining moral accountability, with surveys showing higher evolution acceptance among those with liberal views or low religious attendance. While acknowledging mainstream scientific consensus, the site attributes this to institutional pressures and censorship of dissent, as evidenced by cases where creationist arguments are reportedly dismissed without engagement. Proponents are encouraged to contribute examples bolstering creationism, fostering a collaborative counter to perceived evolutionary dogmatism.

Skepticism Toward Relativity and Environmental Claims

Conservapedia expresses skepticism toward Einstein's theory of relativity, arguing that it is undermined by numerous counterexamples and logical inconsistencies, while being promoted in academic and media circles partly due to its alignment with liberal relativism that discourages absolute truths. The site's "Counterexamples to Relativity" entry lists specific objections, such as the theory's failure to account for absolute frames of reference in phenomena like the Pioneer anomaly, where spacecraft deviated from predicted paths without relativistic explanations fully resolving the issue, and claims of experimental discrepancies in particle accelerator results that challenge time dilation predictions. These critiques are framed within a broader conservative worldview that prioritizes biblical accounts of absolute time and space, viewing relativity as mathematically complex yet empirically unproven in key areas, with ongoing tests by physicists like University of Maryland's Carroll Alley cited as evidence of unresolved doubts. Conservapedia also highlights alleged flaws in derivations like E=mc², asserting Galilean relativity better explains certain mechanics without invoking unobservable frames, and rebuts mainstream defenses as reliant on untested assumptions. Regarding environmental claims, Conservapedia maintains that assertions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming constitute a liberal hoax, supported by counterexamples such as the absence of predicted temperature rises despite rising CO2 levels, including satellite data from 1979 onward showing pauses or declines in warming trends contrary to 1990s model forecasts. The site documents failed predictions, like Al Gore's 2006 claims of imminent ice-free Arctic summers by 2014 or submerged Florida coastlines, which did not materialize as of 2025, attributing these to politicized science rather than empirical reality. It critiques the "hockey stick" graph popularized in 2001 as a manipulated hoax to erase historical warm and cold periods, citing investigations like the 2006 Wegman Report that questioned its statistical validity and proxy data handling. Conservapedia argues media bias amplifies hot weather anomalies while downplaying cold snaps, such as record U.S. snowfalls in 2010 or European freezes in 2021, and portrays the "climate agenda" as a rebranded global warming narrative to advance socialist policies, with organizations like the Heartland Institute's conferences providing alternative data on natural variability over human causation. This stance aligns with Conservapedia's emphasis on verifiable data over consensus-driven claims from institutions perceived as left-leaning. Conservapedia defines as the intentional killing of an unborn , describing it as a "betrayal of the defenseless unborn , who fights as hard as he or she can against it." The encyclopedia frames the procedure as morally equivalent to , rooted in a biblical worldview that affirms the sanctity of human life from conception, with references to scriptural passages emphasizing protection of the innocent. It argues that supports life beginning at fertilization, citing embryonic development milestones such as heartbeat detection around six weeks and wave activity by eight weeks. Key arguments against abortion on Conservapedia include health risks to women, prominently claiming a causal link between induced and increased incidence, which it asserts has been empirically demonstrated despite mainstream medical consensus to the contrary. Other cited concerns encompass , higher rates of subsequent , and elevated risk among women post-. The site critiques legal precedents like (1973), portraying the decision as judicial overreach that invented a constitutional "fundamental right" to without textual basis, and celebrates its 2022 overturning in Dobbs v. as a restoration of state-level democratic control. Conservapedia's pro-life position extends to opposition against partial-birth abortions, which it details as involving the delivery of a nearly full-term infant before lethal intervention, labeling such methods as particularly barbaric. On related issues, the encyclopedia incorporates euthanasia into its pro-life framework, defining the stance as comprehensive resistance to both abortion and assisted suicide, viewing the latter as a devaluation of vulnerable lives, particularly among the elderly or disabled. It credits the American pro-life movement with saving "millions of babies' lives" through advocacy, legislation, and cultural shifts, noting Republican Party platforms since 2016 as adopting historically strong anti-abortion language. Public opinion data highlighted includes a May 3–6 poll showing 50% of Americans identifying as pro-life versus 41% pro-choice, interpreting this as evidence of growing societal recognition of fetal amid declining abortion rates. Conservapedia attributes pro-choice advocacy to liberal biases in media and academia, which it claims suppress alternatives like and underreport abortion's long-term societal costs, such as demographic declines in birth rates.

Reception and Impact

Endorsements and Achievements

Conservapedia, launched on November 21, 2006, by attorney and educator , has sustained operations for nearly two decades as a self-described conservative alternative to mainstream online encyclopedias. This endurance represents a key achievement, enabling the accumulation of over 900 million page views and maintaining visibility in results. The platform experienced heightened traffic during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, underscoring its relevance in politically charged discourse. User statistics reflect a dedicated, predominantly older male audience, with demographics indicating 76.48% male visitors and a significant portion aged 65 and above as of September 2025. By , it had already surpassed 438 million page views and amassed over 46,000 registered users, demonstrating early growth in engagement despite competition from larger platforms. These metrics highlight Conservapedia's success in cultivating a niche user base skeptical of perceived institutional biases in sources like . While explicit endorsements from high-profile figures remain limited in public records, the project aligns with conservative efforts to counter liberal-leaning narratives, as noted in contemporaneous reporting on its creation as a "right-minded alternative." Founded by the son of conservative activist , it has been positioned within broader movements emphasizing family-friendly, pro-American content, contributing to its adoption in and self-directed conservative education.

Criticisms and Media Portrayals

Criticisms of Conservapedia frequently center on allegations of factual inaccuracies, particularly in scientific domains, and an overt conservative bias that supplants empirical evidence with ideological assertions. Media Bias/Fact Check, an independent media rating organization, classified Conservapedia as "Questionable" in its assessment, citing extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and dissemination of outright false information, such as claims denying established scientific consensus on evolution and relativity. These critiques often highlight entries rejecting Darwinian evolution in favor of young-earth creationism and portraying the theory of relativity as atheistic or overly mathematical obfuscation, which opponents argue misrepresents peer-reviewed evidence from fields like biology and physics. Mainstream media portrayals have predominantly framed Conservapedia as a niche, fundamentalist counterpoint to , emphasizing its origins in perceived liberal biases on the larger encyclopedia. In March 2007, described it as "the religious right's answer to ," noting founder Andrew Schlafly's grievances including 's preference for British spellings, dating, and administrators perceived as atheists or liberals. Similarly, in 2007 portrayed it as conservatives' self-built alternative, mimicking 's model but enforcing stricter viewpoint controls to avoid "anti-Christian" or "pro-abortion" content. Such coverage often underscores Schlafly's background and the site's rules mandating and biblical references, positioning it as ideologically rigid rather than neutral. Many detractors, including bloggers and academics, have ridiculed specific initiatives like the Conservative Bible , launched in 2009 to excise "liberal untruths" from scripture translations, drawing rebukes for altering texts to align with modern conservative politics—such as emphasizing free-market principles absent in originals. Vanity Fair in April 2009 labeled it a " of the reality-denying right," critiquing its role as a haven for anti-evolution advocates who decry mainstream science as elitist or deceptive. Early reactions, including from in February 2007, speculated it might be parody due to entries like equating with bestiality or deeming the Democratic Party more dangerous than , though its earnestness was later confirmed. These portrayals reflect a broader pattern in left-leaning media and academic sources, which systematically downplay Conservapedia's documentation of 's own verifiable es—such as underrepresentation of conservative figures or overemphasis on progressive narratives—while amplifying its deviations from secular consensus as disqualifying. Critics have expressed concern that its accessible format could mislead younger users into accepting pseudoscientific claims as authoritative, given the site's self-presentation as a trustworthy despite lacking 's scale or diverse editing. Nonetheless, such evaluations warrant scrutiny for potential ideological motivations, as mainstream outlets exhibiting left-wing may reflexively dismiss conservative epistemological challenges without engaging their evidentiary basis.

Key Controversies Including Lenski Exchange

One prominent controversy surrounding Conservapedia arose from its skepticism toward mainstream scientific claims, particularly in evolutionary biology. In June 2008, Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly published an entry titled "Flaws in Richard Lenski Study," critiquing a paper by biologist Richard Lenski and colleagues in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The study detailed findings from a 20-year experiment where Escherichia coli bacteria in 12 populations evolved over 40,000 generations, with one population developing the novel ability to metabolize citrate aerobically—a trait absent in the ancestral strain. Schlafly argued the changes represented "devolution" rather than genuine evolution, asserting mutations degraded fitness without creating new genetic information, and demanded access to raw data, including frozen bacterial samples, for verification. Schlafly emailed Lenski on June 18, 2008, requesting the preserved samples to enable independent replication, framing Conservapedia as a neutral steward of public . Lenski replied on June 24, explaining that the "" consisted of the frozen E. coli archives themselves, which had been analyzed through genetic sequencing revealing a tandem duplication a promoter capture for citrate —a stepwise involving prior "potentiating" mutations. He declined to distribute samples to non-collaborators due to protocols, limited resources, and the fact that the PNAS paper already provided verifiable evidence, including competition assays confirming the trait's benefits. Schlafly followed up, accusing Lenski of withholding and questioning the experiment's controls, while Conservapedia posted the exchange publicly, attracting widespread media attention and commentary. The "Lenski affair," as it became known, exemplified broader tensions between Conservapedia's young-earth creationist perspective—which posits that observed adaptations occur within created kinds without violating biblical timelines—and empirical evolutionary research. Critics of Lenski's work, including proponents, maintained the Cit+ trait involved a loss of aerobic repression rather than gain, disputing claims of "new function" as mere regulatory tweaks insufficient for macroevolutionary leaps. Lenski's team later published genomic details in 2008 and 2010, confirming the mutation's tandem amplification mechanism, but Conservapedia editors persisted in highlighting alleged methodological gaps, such as unshared intermediate strains. The episode underscored Conservapedia's commitment to countering perceived atheistic biases in academia, though it drew accusations of from outlets like , which noted Schlafly's apparent misunderstanding of the paper's data presentation. Beyond the Lenski exchange, Conservapedia has faced scrutiny for entries promoting unsubstantiated claims, such as assertions of liberal denialism in historical events or science. For instance, its coverage of emphasizes data critiques from skeptics like those in the reports, rejecting consensus models as ideologically driven, while entries on link it causally to societal ills based on selective . Internal commandants enforce viewpoint restrictions, leading to bans of editors deemed insufficiently conservative, as reported in analyses of its operational principles. These practices have fueled debates over reliability, with portraying Conservapedia as a for right-wing narratives, though its proponents argue it rectifies Wikipedia's documented left-leaning edits on politicized topics.

References

  1. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia
  2. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Andrew_Schlafly
  3. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5473331-wikipedia-bias-probe-republicans/
  4. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3041021.3053375
  5. https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words
  6. https://www.similarweb.com/website/conservapedia.com/
  7. https://paw.princeton.edu/article/moment-andrew-schlafly-81-conservapedia
  8. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/02/wikipedia.news
  9. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-jun-19-na-schlafly19-story.html
  10. https://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/03/05/cq_2356.html?pagewanted=all
  11. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/04/03/online-conservapedia-pitched-as-conservative-alternative-to-wikipedia/
  12. https://www.timesargus.com/features/conservapedia-defines-difference/article_067d8b1b-4821-5bbd-87ae-3c75c8f01c0d.html
  13. https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/
  14. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/01/wikipedia.news
  15. https://www.npr.org/2007/03/13/8286084/conservapedia-data-for-birds-of-a-political-feather
  16. https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/37366
  17. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:An_illustrated_guide
  18. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/8286084?storyId=8286084?storyId=8286084
  19. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments
  20. https://archive.ph/rNJdB
  21. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Quick_reference
  22. https://www.conservapedia.com/Vandalism_on_Conservapedia
  23. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:General_disclaimer
  24. https://creationwiki.org/Conservapedia
  25. https://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive3
  26. https://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Acorn
  27. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Contact_Us
  28. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Differences_with_Wikipedia
  29. https://www.quora.com/Does-Wikipedia-have-a-left-wing-liberal-bias-Conservapedia-and-Metapedia-claim-that-they-do
  30. https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness
  31. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Debate_Topics
  32. https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_it_okay_for_Conservapedia_to_have_biased_articles%253F
  33. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:90/10_Rule
  34. https://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_inerrancy
  35. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About
  36. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative
  37. https://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge
  38. https://www.conservapedia.com/Fundamentalism
  39. https://www.christianpost.com/news/conservapedia-challenges-anti-christian-wiki-26179/
  40. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
  41. https://www.conservapedia.com/Political_spectrum
  42. https://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_bias
  43. https://www.conservapedia.com/Politically_correct
  44. https://www.conservapedia.com/Republican_Party
  45. https://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism
  46. https://www.conservapedia.com/Democratic_Party
  47. https://www.conservapedia.com/Uniparty
  48. https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_populism
  49. https://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion_Betrayals
  50. https://www.conservapedia.com/Same-sex_marriage
  51. https://www.conservapedia.com/Cultural_Marxism
  52. https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism
  53. https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_morality
  54. https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_suppression_of_science
  55. https://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_open-mindedness
  56. https://www.conservapedia.com/Secular_humanism
  57. http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?columnid=5450&articleid=74685
  58. https://sojo.net/articles/gospel-according-conservative-bible-project
  59. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/11/conservative-bible-project-liberal-conservapedia
  60. https://www.nydailynews.com/2009/12/04/conservative-bible-project-aims-to-rewrite-scripture-to-counter-perceived-liberal-bias/
  61. http://www.goodmath.org/blog/2009/10/08/the-conservative-rewrite-of-the-bible/
  62. https://www.salon.com/2009/10/08/conservative_bible_2/
  63. https://creation.com/politicizing-scripture-conservative-bible-translation
  64. http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/10/conservapedia-bible-project-free-of.html
  65. https://amateurexegete.com/2019/04/02/examining-the-conservative-bible-project-mark-18/
  66. https://openoureyeslord.com/2022/12/30/the-conservative-bible-project-cbp-beware/
  67. https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Conservapedia
  68. https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Novels
  69. https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Worst_Liberal_Books
  70. https://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Worst_Liberal_TV_Shows
  71. https://www.conservapedia.com/French_Revolution
  72. https://www.conservapedia.com/Propaganda
  73. https://www.conservapedia.com/Young_Earth_Creationism
  74. https://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution
  75. https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Counterexamples_to_Evolution
  76. https://www.conservapedia.com/Creationism
  77. https://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution_and_liberalism
  78. https://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Creationist
  79. https://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity
  80. https://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity
  81. https://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Global_Warming
  82. https://www.conservapedia.com/Hockey_Stick_Hoax
  83. https://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion
  84. https://www.conservapedia.com/Right_to_life
  85. https://www.conservapedia.com/Roe_v._Wade
  86. https://www.conservapedia.com/Pro-life
  87. https://www.uloop.com/news/view.php/23611/Conservapedia-The-Anti-Wikipedia
  88. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conservapedia/
  89. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2008/jul/01/conservapediahasalittlehan
  90. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/04/conservapedia-bastion-of-the-realitydenying-right
  91. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2007/feb/28/conservapediag
  92. https://arstechnica.com/features/2008/06/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles/
  93. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/of-bacteria-and-throw-pillows
  94. https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/06/lenski-gives-co.html
  95. https://reason.com/2008/06/30/bacterial-evolution-disproves/
  96. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Conservapedia
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.