Does anyone take conservapedia seriously

To expand on the third option in the poll, what I mean by "Only as a way to find a specific conservative viewpoint of a subject " is that you were not using it as a source on the subject itself, only as a way to understand a particular viewpoint, possibly in conjunction with other research to find other viewpoints. Joined: Dec 12, Messages: 4, Joined: Dec 5, Messages: Equuleus , Oct 21, Quackers , Oct 21, Joined: Aug 1, Messages: 3, Ulyaoth , Oct 21, Joined: Sep 3, Messages: 10, Location: an ecovillage in madagascar.

Fifty , Oct 21, I'd also appreciate if some of the people who voted "yes" would explain why they see it as a legitimate source of information.

Joined: Jun 6, Messages: 2, Location: Texas. Joined: May 17, Messages: 20, I take Conservapedia very serious. Godwynn , Oct 21, I also take it very seriously, its just eternal proof that the tap water of Southern and Midwestern United States is very saturated with poisonous liquids. The notion that they no longer talk is irrelevant. Satan does. Arguments at Conservapedia have a tendency to end with such threats. During the Dawkins debate, Schlafly himself warned several contributors that they would be banned unless they refrained from arguing with him further.

Above all, Conservapedia is supposed to be something of an online haven for the anti-evolution crowd, a place where decorum precludes mentioning that advocates of intelligent design haven't added any new articles to their own scientific journal since In further defense of Schafly, he's usually rather polite.

Schafly is accommodating: "Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed. Enter your e-mail address. With fewer than 12, entries and typos galore the misspelling of Mobil above; the mayor of L.

But the all-volunteer site has several thousand active readers and writers. Schlafly encourages his students to use it as a reference, saying that the articles are more concise than those on Wikipedia. On the home page, just above the daily Bible verse, he tallies total views: But they worry about material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seek to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion.

Schlafly says students can always follow the footnotes to get more information, but few links connect to dissenting -- or even mainstream -- views. There are brisk, straightforward entries about hundreds of topics: the tuba, Claude Monet, the nation of Latvia, Robin Hood, polygons, the Renaissance. But consider the entry on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton b. Schlafly, the son of Republican activist Phyllis Schlafly, is a Harvard-educated attorney who practices in Chester, N.

He promotes writers he finds trustworthy to be systems administrators, who are able to block editors and protect certain articles from changes. That makes it an interesting window into a foreign world for college student Tasha D. Jones, 24, who says she loves to browse random pages and see how writers have inserted Biblical quotes or framed historical events in religious terms.

The articles change constantly, as most are open to editing by anyone online; on a recent day, a few showed dissenting views. An entry about kangaroo origins, for instance, stated that most scientists believe in evolution.