Conservapedia - a wiki battle heats up

It's always a welcome thing when alternatives to the mainstream pop up. I loved Wikipedia, because it proved to be a a malleable alternative, albeit sometimes flawed and insufficient. It's grown up to be a phenomenon in its own right, and is now what, er mainstream folk turn to.

So Conservapedia looked interesting, but when you look closer, it's a bit too obsessed with being the uncola, to Wikipedia's real thing. If you look at some of the debates, where editors battle over the creationist/evolution argument, they seem to be tripping over themselves as in this article pending deletion, how 'quote mining' is the problem.

Just for the record, some of the inaccuracies of Conservapedia are highlighted in, where else, Wikipedia, here.

But more hilarious --or pathetic --is the fact that Conservapedia doesn't live up to it's objective, by inviting lame explanations, as observed by Comic Variance, and Wonkette.

As for freedom from bias, take a look at this entry for John McCain, and the subhead 'electability,' and you be the judge.