Conservapedia: watch out for sea monsters!

"Whatever the Loch Ness monster may be, nearly all mainstream evolutionist scientists are still unconvinced of its existence."


So, I just stumbled onto the conservapedia, which is Andrew Schlafly's attempt to build a counterpoint to the liberal bias he sees in wikipedia. Apparently many of the original articles were drafted by a group of home schooled history buffs, and subsequently controlled by some particularly closed minded editors. Having just played around with it for a few minutes, I can point a number of interesting aspects:

A. The science articles are unspeakably poorly written and biased. The loch ness monster gets a more balanced treatment than evolution. Granted, there are a few brave souls trying to fix the science, but they're basically screwed.

B. I suppose not unexpected, but there's a whole bunch of comstock-style moral censorship at the conservapedia. Not content with merely editing and locking sexually themed articles to keep content strictly encyclopedic, sexuality related articles are banned, and there's debate over the obscenity of Dick Cheney's name. The current menstruation article is only 4 sentences, but does have an important pointer: "...God does not approve of menstruation.."