Stephen Retherford writing at Sisyphus has been musing about CreationWiki and Conservapedia, two ideologically-driven alternatives to Wikipedia. Google them if you must; I won't honor them with a link. Irony being what it is, both use the MediaWiki software (and even the default template) that Wikipedia developed. Such ingratitude.
Alas, both projects are doomed to quick obscurity, which may or may not feed their well-cultivated sense of persecution. The gift economy (Wikipedia link, of course) that makes Wikipedia possible passively resists ideological confines. In a word, it is nearly impossible to maintain the critical mass such a project needs if you select-out most potential writers. (This is also true of more constrained projects, like intra-Unitarian Universalist wikis, I'm afraid, which is why I took mine down. I think small wiki projects need to be tightly managed.) Seeing that Conservapedia doesn't have entries for the Eagle Forum (depite its founder being the Eagle Forum's founder's son), the John Birch Society, or CWA, I can't think it'll go far. Apparently, one needs to be not only conservative but Christian- and American-minded to really participate. So much for Tories, say. Feh. A stinginess of spirit comes through.
But CreationWiki can be interesting but not for the reason its founders intended. Like Wikipedia (but unlike Conservapedia, which has an ambiguous copyright and license status) CreationWiki is released under the GNU Public License (GPL). This means there's a real, live creationist resource available for its critics to use without copyright fears, provided the terms of the GPL are honored.