[Kamehameha34]

Let's look at a few of the "biases" conservapedia is trying to point out:

Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.

Right, so a lack of bias for Christianity is bias against it?

Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.

It's all fine and dandy when you want to keep the numbers even, but why do they think the number of conservatives in America somehow effects Wikipedia's ability to publish factual material? If there were less conservatives than liberals, would that invalidate any of the articals?

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation."

Damn those extra U's! They make me want to go burn down a church with the American flag!

Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin by never acknowledging that he later abandoned it. Wikipedia fails to admit the significance of how Franklin, near the end of his life, proposed the saying of prayers at the Constitutional Convention for divine intervention and assistance in the proceedings,[9] an act contrary to the teachings of deism. Wikipedia also omits any acknowledgment of Franklin's praise of Pilgrim's Progress in his autobiography.

Yes, because if anything contradicts their religious values, something must be immediately cited to back them up, even if it is irrelevant. Right?

Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer. For example, Wikipedia's entry on Nina Totenberg states, "She married H. David Reines, a trauma physician, in 2000. On their honeymoon, he treated her for severe injuries after she was hit by a boat propeller while swimming." That sounds just like the National Enquirer, and reflects a bias towards gossip. Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

Either I'm too young too understand that rather.. peculiar inuendo, or wikipedia was just citing a significant event in her life.

Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.

Do they mean.. "facts" like this?:

But Darwin's meaning of the term "evolution" has not survived the test of time. Today, promoters of the theory of evolution define it simply as "change over time" because that is easier to defend.

The Theory of Evolution - Conservapedia

Or .. this?

Creationists can cite material showing that there is no real fossil evidence for the macroevolutionary position and that the fossil record supports creationism:

The Theory of Evolution - Conservapedia

Right. Facts. Sorry I doubted them.