Please, everybody, please check out Conservapedia. It's newer than Wikipedia, and so doesn't have as many entires (like a separarte entry on every single album Snoop Doggy Dogg ever made), but it's growing. It may not be a Christian site, but it's pro-Christian. It's even got a "Bible Verse of the Day." It's entry on Jesus begins this way:

"Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and prophesied Messiah who, at the appropriate time, was sent by his Father and became a man to be the satisfaction for the anger of God toward us because of our sin, and to reveal to us the nature of God through his human person (1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19).

Jesus' major goal is to reveal his Father to those who will repent and trust in him as their only way of salvation from his Father's anger at them for their sin."


http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

I've had my own experiences with Wikipedia. I read all the rules and instructions, signed in, and did some very balanced, very fair additions to the profile of Ruckman (which was very negative). All of my additions were gone within a day, except for one: I had identified Hugh Pyle as the man who led Ruckman to Christ. The fact that this one change remained was proof that I hadn't messed up the edits I made.

The anti-Ruckmanites are on Wikipedia like flies on a puddle of honey. I only mention this because it was my only experience with editing it.

But I'm gonna try some things at Conservapedia.....