Whilst I doubt there's enough weirdness to justify being a Lolcow. If we're simply putting stuff that could be relevant, Conservapedia (
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page) can sometimes be funny. If it wasn't obvious from the name, it bills itself as a American right wing alternative to Wikipedia. In practice this tends to amount to a small band of admins calling everything they like Christian/American/Conservative and anything they don't like Liberal/Darwinist/Atheist. This tends to lead to a rather... One sided view of things.
The site proclaims that it supports the idea of the 'Best of the Public' being better than experts- which is to say that people not actually experts are sometimes able to offer insights which the experts would be unable to perceive. Strangely though in the site itself new contributors trying to point out flaws in articles tend to run afoul of the '90/10' rule which proclaims that 90% of a contributors contributions should be to articles and only 10% should be spent on the talk page.
This wouldn't be an issue except that the people most supportive of the issues in bias in the site also tend to be the most prolific and thus capable of invoking the 90/10 rule with effective impunity and their debating skills tend to be fairly circular. For example here, User: Conservative defends his work in the article 'Atheism and Bestiality' by advising those who claim he's biased to read his article on 'Atheism and mass murder'.
By the way, Conservative is one of the sites main members and apparently has a major hatred for Atheism, as in it isn't unusual to see this on the recent changes page:
He also has a tendency to make pages in the 'humour' category each one with the majority of the content in images with lengthy captions and links to more articles in the same category
with the same pictures and captions. His attempts at satire also give us '
Essay: The transitional animal the flying kitty?' which has the same gif repeated over and over for an entire page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_The_transitional_animal_the_flying_kitty?).
Finally, Conservapedia has a few 'side projects' of it's own, which help to illustrate the sites weirdness. For example 'Conservapedia's law' states that the amount of new conservative words and phrases doubles every century. Examples of Conservative words to prove this amount to basically anything such as 'abstract nonsense' (because you can use it to apply to the beliefs of Liberals), 'act of God' (because anything religious is automatically conservative) and 'atheistic' (no idea). Another example project is the 'Conservative Bible Project' since Conservapedia as a site tends towards the view that the Bible is the most important conservative work and is infallible as it was inspired by God. However apparently many modern Bible's contain liberal bias and thus cannot be trusted.
To counter this the site is encouraging members to re-write passages of the Bible in a more conservative manner. Funnily enough according to the site, George Orwell was a conservative though I suspect he'd agree that the double-think required to claim the source you were re-writing infallible is pretty impressive.
In closing, Conservapedia is a site completely oblivious to the fact that it is a pot calling an entire kitchen black.
