If one group says a former U.S. president’s term is remembered as the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in the country’s history, but another says it was marred by personal scandal and untrustworthiness, it might seem highly unlikely they are referencing the same person.
They both, however, are talking about former president Bill Clinton, whose term lasted between 1993-2001, making him the first Democrat who served after Jimmy Carter held the Oval Office in 1980. Though some of the facts about Clinton’s presidency, such the years of his service, are indisputable, the emergence of website Conservapedia.com, which bills itself as an antidote to what it calls the liberal bias of popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia.com, proves history is in the eyes of the blogger.
Founded in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, son of famous conservative Phyliss Schlafly — known for opposing the Equal Rights Amendment promoted by feminists in the 1970s — the website is designed to look almost identical to Wikipedia but offers entries with a decidedly more conservative bent.
“We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts, while Wikipedia editors, who are far more liberal than the American public, are free to censor factual information,” the website reads.
Conservapedia is one of the newest additions to the Internet encyclopedias in which volunteer editors and users can change and creates entries just as they can on Wikipedia.
Schlafly, who did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article, said in a March 13 National Public Radio interview that the percentage of the 271 Wikipedia users he independently interviewed described themselves as liberal at a rate of three times the national average.
Wikipedia spokeswoman Sandra Ordoñez said Wikipedia has never conducted a complete poll of its users to accurately determine their political inclinations, and that its goal is to neutrally represent all views that are cited in its articles.
In comparing the two websites, a search for the term “god” brings up a page that lists several topics, including the etymology and usage of the terms, as well as different names of god, theological approaches and the history of monotheism. The same search on Conservapedia only yields a definition for “Biblical God,” along with notes, references and sources for that definition.
Total objectivity on such topics can prove elusive for anyone, but Wikipedia is actually more neutral, said Jonathon Zittrain, professor of Internet governance and regulation at Oxford University.
“They take neutrality seriously even as many would say it’s impossible to define,” Zittrain said of Wikipedia. “Conservapedia appears not to be neutral from the start.”
Malcolm Kline, executive director of Accuracy in Academia, a conservative group that monitors textbooks, professors and websites for bias, said users reading either website should consult secondary sources because biases work their way into both.
“It’s a huge mistake to only report on the Internet,” he said.