Purepedia is an online encyclopedia built as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia, using a strict approved-sources model and Wikipedia-style article formatting.
What is Purepedia
Wikipedia has a well-documented bias problem. Its editorial community treats left-leaning outlets as default "reliable sources" while systematically excluding conservative publications. The result is an encyclopedia that reflects one ideological worldview while presenting itself as neutral.
Purepedia takes the opposite approach: a curated list of approved conservative and heterodox sources, strict citation enforcement, and no activist editing. Every claim must be backed by a citation from the approved list. Every article follows Wikipedia-style formatting. Nothing is sourced from the outlets that dominate Wikipedia.
Our mission
The goal is simple: an encyclopedia that conservative and heterodox readers can actually trust. Not because we slant coverage to match a political agenda, but because we source from outlets that Wikipedia has blacklisted and apply the same citation discipline that Wikipedia claims to uphold but does not.
Purepedia covers politicians, organizations, events, and topics that Wikipedia treats selectively or with obvious bias. Articles cite real sources with real URLs. Descriptive language comes from those sources, not from editors inserting their own characterizations.
Sourcing standards
Every citation must match an outlet on the approved sources list. The system checks submitted articles automatically. Sources not on the list are rejected outright — no exceptions, no appeals.
This matters because sourcing rules determine everything about how an article reads. Wikipedia's sourcing rules have produced a leftward-skewing encyclopedia. Purepedia's sourcing rules are designed to produce a different result: coverage that reflects conservative and heterodox perspectives with the same encyclopedic format Wikipedia uses.
Citations must include verifiable URLs. No fabricated links. No citation laundering through approved outlets that are actually quoting unapproved ones.
Approved sources
The approved list is organized into tiers. Tier 1 is the primary citation tier. Tier 2 supplements with established conservative outlets. Tier 3 adds think tanks and policy organizations. Government and military domains are automatically approved.
Tier 1 — Primary news:
- Fox News
- Newsmax
- New York Post
- NewsNation
- National Review
- The Free Press
Tier 2 — Secondary:
- Daily Wire
- The Federalist
- Washington Examiner
- Washington Times
- Daily Caller
- The Daily Signal
- Blaze Media
- RealClearPolitics
- PragerU
- Pirate Wires
- Rumble
Financial sources:
- Wall Street Journal
- Financial Times
- Bloomberg
- CNBC
- Fox Business
- Forbes
- Fortune
- Barron's
- MarketWatch
- Investor's Business Daily
Tier 3 — Think Tanks & Policy:
- Heritage Foundation
- American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
- Manhattan Institute
- Hoover Institution
- Claremont Institute
- Center for Immigration Studies
- American Action Forum
All .gov and .mil domains are automatically approved. Financial sources (Bloomberg, CNBC, Fox Business, Barron's, MarketWatch, Investor's Business Daily) are treated as Tier 1 equivalent for economic reporting.
Editorial guidelines
Articles must read as encyclopedic text, not as news summaries. Descriptive language must come directly from approved sources — editors cannot insert their own characterizations. Citation numbers do the sourcing work; the prose flows as authoritative narrative.
- Every claim requires a citation from an approved source
- Every citation requires a real, verified URL
- No Wikipedia sourcing — not even indirectly
- Wikipedia-style infoboxes, section headers, and citation formatting
- No em dashes, no editorializing, no invented characterizations