Something to investigate for the big thinkers, if you choose to go down the rabbit hole.
- The difference is, that the sources provided (or allowed to be provided) is from two very different sources. Ones that are factual or at least are heavily checked to be factual are the source of Wikipedia's. Where as religiously motivated websites or social website posts are the references for "conservapedia".
"conservapedia" has incredibly low standards for its sources. That obviously would be the only reason why it has so many sources if it sourced only social websites and church websites, however if you comb over the sources you will find that some of these sources attempt to mimic legitimate scientific publications. Now this could simply be that many conservative websites are attempting to mimic legitimate factual websites for a while now, that is one theory.
- Here we look at a source for "conservapedia".
Here we can clearly see an attempt to mimic a legitimate scientific journal, complete with ITS OWN sources. Now we can assume that for some reason the Pastor/christian community has been mimicing the same way that scientific journals have been for a long while. However I would be much more inclined to believe that a lot of these sources are just purely fabricated. In that I don't mean whether or not I question that they exist, I mean that people are being paid to develop and source these articles out and pass them off as legitimate and genuine looking. It is likely that it is a mix of both.
- I would believe that if one were to follow the paper trail of certain sources given if you follow the rabbit hole down enough you will find that you could put a little egg on the face of someone big, however this isn't something I feel that I'm prepared to do and I'm sure many of you aren't either. Just throwing this one out there.