I could see this new online thing being either a shining force for reason, logic and good or just another site of garbage. If the people do in fact clearly explain all information that is fact and show all aspects to a topic or argument that would show the world just how reasonable adults can behave online. If it however just shows all information supporting liberal agenda then how is that anymore helpful than their conservative counterpart?
Wikipedia, even if it has some bias (after all, it's edited by ppl), is WAAAYYY Better than Conservashit and Libarashit (well, actually Liberashit is a parody, so who cares). If u want to avoid wikipedia's bias, then don,t use it from works that demand an opinion on things. For anything related to science, Wiki owns all
this is bullshit. we do not need a liberalpedia. we do not need a conservapedia. all we need, is one source that gives us the facts, not opinions. take the site down, its just going to be an embarrasment like conservapedia.
Good job "liberapedia", conservapedia is an absolute joke of an attempt of an encyclopedia and now you have an equally pathetic one to match. Why not just go the psych ward and ask somebody there instead of going to either?
liberapedia is obviously more of a joke than conservapedia, as I don't think liberapedia takes it self seriously, and if it does, well then both these sites are bullshit, but hilarious
I've been on both Conservapedia and Liberapedia, and the latter is the most ridiculous and hate-filled one. I hate that site so much, yet I still go there to see what kind of garbage they put there.
while i totally agree that Conservapedia is biased bullcrap (for lack of a better word), im afraid your liberapedia, although more open, is very biased and lacks the values of an unbiased encyclopedia as well.
an extremely informal tone, irrelevant, unreliable sources, etc. i find wikipedia to be the most reliable, unbiased source, just stick with it lol
I agree it's better to have wikipedia alone, but would better have wilipedia and liberapedia only existing than wikipedia and conservapedia only existing.
Speaking as liberal minded person, lemme say that this is getting silly. Why on earth would you want to play their game? There was never anything wrong with Wikipedia- it was never trying to be biased. I'm failing to see how countering an inaccurate right wing wiki with an inaccurate left wing one improves the situation for anyone.
@obamasensation Wikipedia is fairly good in some areas, but it definitely leaves out crucial information on some topics. Censorship is a reality and done against both conservative and liberal sides at different times as well as against others. Just compare homosexuality on wikipedia vs. conservapedia re: health and whether it's natural/people are born with it (and parenting, mental issues, etc.). Which side has more science supporting it?
@EricZombie yes it was, this isnt. conservapedia was created because certain idiots felt Wikipedia was not biased enough. This Liberapedia was created to compete with "Conservapedia" which does not appear to me worth competing with, and the sources in it are sadly not any more reliable in Conservapedia
It's not up anymore. Big surprise.
meh23p 5 months ago
...A red star? Liberalism? Roflolz.
meh23p 5 months ago
@meh23p lol
seeheers 1 month ago
Liberalpedia has been going for centuries its called 'the scientific method'.
StunnedByStupidity 7 months ago
@StunnedByStupidity hmmm if you go to the acual website it has less citations than wikipedia... seems more like a movement than actual freethinking
seeheers 1 month ago
@seeheers The point I was making has been lost on you...
StunnedByStupidity 1 month ago
Available only in Liberia?
UnicornTapestry 9 months ago 2
i looked at that liberapedia site... you sir are a dumbass.
please kill it, kill it quick
bla34112 10 months ago
@bla34112 and conservapedia isnt bullshit?
MamaMario13 8 months ago
@MamaMario13
would you counter bullshit with more bullshit?
bla34112 8 months ago
@bla34112 yeah... it only makes liberals look bad
seeheers 1 month ago
well lame name, but at least it's not the opposite of conservapedia. lol
They definitely claim a liberal bias. The only thing I really disagree with is claiming truth.
urantivirus 1 year ago
lol nice, I like the red star.
now I assume when I click on the site link it will deliver some sort of punchline or joke. this can't be for real. lol
urantivirus 1 year ago
liberalpedia already existed. The name wikipedia not good enough for the left?
obianicantkillm 1 year ago
It was a stupid idea when they did it and its just a dumber idea when you do it, especially considering that you have seen how this crap turns out.
Ofrolvi793 1 year ago
I could see this new online thing being either a shining force for reason, logic and good or just another site of garbage. If the people do in fact clearly explain all information that is fact and show all aspects to a topic or argument that would show the world just how reasonable adults can behave online. If it however just shows all information supporting liberal agenda then how is that anymore helpful than their conservative counterpart?
joemama114 1 year ago
Wikipedia, even if it has some bias (after all, it's edited by ppl), is WAAAYYY Better than Conservashit and Libarashit (well, actually Liberashit is a parody, so who cares). If u want to avoid wikipedia's bias, then don,t use it from works that demand an opinion on things. For anything related to science, Wiki owns all
rolingpingu 1 year ago
this is bullshit. we do not need a liberalpedia. we do not need a conservapedia. all we need, is one source that gives us the facts, not opinions. take the site down, its just going to be an embarrasment like conservapedia.
TheAmericanCanadian 1 year ago
Good job "liberapedia", conservapedia is an absolute joke of an attempt of an encyclopedia and now you have an equally pathetic one to match. Why not just go the psych ward and ask somebody there instead of going to either?
bigfilmhat 1 year ago
I went to liberapedia and it is just as bad if not worse than Conservapedia.
dragonsder 1 year ago
The sad thing is this is done for fun... Conservepidia is taking itself seriously, hopefully it will disappear up its own asshole soon.
CraigMetalHead 1 year ago
liberapedia is obviously more of a joke than conservapedia, as I don't think liberapedia takes it self seriously, and if it does, well then both these sites are bullshit, but hilarious
EnergizerBunny804 1 year ago
I've been on both Conservapedia and Liberapedia, and the latter is the most ridiculous and hate-filled one. I hate that site so much, yet I still go there to see what kind of garbage they put there.
Bumblestick 1 year ago
while i totally agree that Conservapedia is biased bullcrap (for lack of a better word), im afraid your liberapedia, although more open, is very biased and lacks the values of an unbiased encyclopedia as well.
an extremely informal tone, irrelevant, unreliable sources, etc. i find wikipedia to be the most reliable, unbiased source, just stick with it lol
madbullowns 2 years ago
I agree it's better to have wikipedia alone, but would better have wilipedia and liberapedia only existing than wikipedia and conservapedia only existing.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
Awesome! America is a free market for ideas and everyone should be heard!
AlcolmEx2 2 years ago
Yeah! I want it to be as that big neo fascist Conservapeida.
HESSThaMarine 2 years ago 4
Speaking as liberal minded person, lemme say that this is getting silly. Why on earth would you want to play their game? There was never anything wrong with Wikipedia- it was never trying to be biased. I'm failing to see how countering an inaccurate right wing wiki with an inaccurate left wing one improves the situation for anyone.
obamasensation 3 years ago 15
@obamasensation totally agree
madbullowns 2 years ago
@obamasensation I think that these guys don't really claim to be 100% truth and that they actually know that they're a satire, like uncyclopedia
rolingpingu 1 year ago
@obamasensation Wikipedia is fairly good in some areas, but it definitely leaves out crucial information on some topics. Censorship is a reality and done against both conservative and liberal sides at different times as well as against others. Just compare homosexuality on wikipedia vs. conservapedia re: health and whether it's natural/people are born with it (and parenting, mental issues, etc.). Which side has more science supporting it?
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@obamasensation say anything against evolution on wikipedia... it gets censored
seeheers 1 month ago
i thought the Wikipedia was good enough to refute the stupid claims of Conservipedia.
EricZombie 3 years ago 3
@EricZombie yes it was, this isnt. conservapedia was created because certain idiots felt Wikipedia was not biased enough. This Liberapedia was created to compete with "Conservapedia" which does not appear to me worth competing with, and the sources in it are sadly not any more reliable in Conservapedia
madbullowns 2 years ago
With music like that, it must be 100% true! :P
uxtalzon 3 years ago 5
yeah babie!
ubcphysicsyangbo 3 years ago 6