> No, as advertised, it is biased.

Calling it biased is suggesting that the views put forward are mainstream conservative views. I don't think the majority of conservatives are stupid enough to say the kind of things I've seen on Conservapedia. It may not be a parody, but it's not a genuine expression of conservative views, it's an expression of the views of some bunch of idiots that call themselves conservative. Try this paragraph from "Liberal quotient": "The formulation LQ = L/(L+C) has also been proposed - the Liberal quotient is the ratio of self identified liberals to the sum of self identified liberals and conservatives. This yields a range from 0 to 1, and is not affected by moderates or the unidentified. But by constraining the quotient to a scale of 0 to 1, it understates a large increase in liberal control. A group having 9 liberals and just one conservative would have a liberal quotient of 0.9, while a group having 99 liberals and only one conservative would have a liberal quotient of only 0.99. Increasing the liberal control eleven-fold would result in only a 10% increase in this quotient, so it is easy to see why liberals would support this metric. The proponents of the LQ=L/(L+C) metric claim that it is "fair and balanced."" They don't seem to realise that you can just swap "conservative" and "liberal" in their example and it gives the exact opposite conclusion. Trying to use mathematics to support your argument when you have no mathematical understanding is a very common way of making yourself look like an idiot. Brilliant entertainment for the rest of us, though.

It looks more like an attempt to undermine the credibility of the political right, seemingly (but not really) from within. Whereas a parody would be written for readers' amusement, this borders more on well-poisoning/trolling, where the desired effect is to incite backlash by readers who assume "serious conservatives" actually share their views, hence the name the site has chosen.

On 01/06/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> When asked about other "competing" sites I talk about free content and > that free content is good. That's why Citizendium is good.

"We're not competing. We're trying to get to the same result in different ways." or something similar, I guess. (The implicit "sooner or later, *one* of us will get it right" may or may not need to be pointed out...)

> (If they ever remember to, uh, *pick* a free content license.)

Just remember to keep saying loudly that they Are Going To, Because Everyone Knows That's The Right Thing...