Stijn van der Kasteel (mahnmut) wrote in talk_politics,
Stijn van der Kasteel
mahnmut
talk_politics

LoLoLs -- Wiki-wha??

OK, fine, Wikipedia made a point the other day. Wikipedia was down for 24 hours, OMGZ! And we're still alive? How come we're still alive??

 

Frankly, I'm glad my other Source of Truth™, the more favorite place, didn't get affected. I'm talking of Conservapedia. Apparently it didn't care to make a point. What, you haven't heard of Conservapedia? Bunch'a ignoramuses, that's what you are!


Funny what Wikipedia has to say about Conservapedia, what Conservapedia has to say about Wikipedia, and all that stuff. And why stop there, let's throw some other Sources into the soup and make it spicier. Like... Rational-Wiki. Also, that awesome thing called Uncyclopedia! The content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!

Here we go.

Wikipedia on Conservapedia:
Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from a self-described American conservative, Christian, and predominantly creationist point of view. The website considers itself to be a supporter of "conservative, family-friendly" content. It was started in 2006 by homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, to counter what he called the liberal bias of Wikipedia. ... Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include: accusations against US President Barack Obama, criticism of Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias, criticism of relativity as promoting relativism, claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer and asserting that the goals of a so-called homosexual agenda include indoctrination. Conservapedia also operates a Conservative Bible Project, which aims to crowd-source a translation of the Bible which will be "free of corruption by liberal untruths".


Conservapedia, a US religious rightwing Website becomes Wikipedia’s Clone

Conservapedia on Conservapedia:
A conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia. It was founded by teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly with the help of several students from his fall 2006 World History class. ... When a student handed in her paper using the date-markers “BCE” and "CE” from Wikipedia, Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of Christianity and conservatism. Other occasions of liberal bias, including the reversion of factual edits about the 2005 Kansas Evolution Hearings, led to the creation and launch of Conservapedia. ... In March 2007 it was picked up by the media, and faced a barrage of vandalism (See Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"). Ever since then, it has continued to grow, and now has tens of millions of page views, and enjoys prominence on search engines.


Conservapedia: The Trustworthy Encyclopedia

Conservapedia on Wikipedia:
A politically left leaning online encyclopedia written and edited by an ad hoc assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the Register (UK), teenagers and unemployed persons. ... The project was initiated by atheist and entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and the agnostic philosophy professor Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader". Despite its official "neutrality policy," Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias. In his article entitled Wikipedia lies, slander continue journalist Joseph Farah stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known." Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website. In December of 2010, Christian apologist JP Holding called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".


From Wikipedia Watch. The inscription reads, "Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."

Meanwhile, Rational-Wiki has some blunt things to say about both Wikipedia and Conservapedia...

Rational-Wiki on Cosnervapedia:
A deceitful, heavily biased and willfully ignorant wiki-based encyclopedia blog project written from a far right and supposedly Christian point of view. It is better viewed as an online guide to understanding how a particular segment of the American fundamentalist Christian right "thinks" than as an actual encyclopedia, as the site's administrators see liberals, atheists, and homosexuals (along with whoever the "bête noire du jour" is, like Muslims) as being the cause of all society's ills. Their attacks on these groups are fueled by traditionalism and jingoistic pro-Americanism. This political clap-trap automatically considers somebody a liberal (whether they are or not) if they fail to toe the party line on any given issue; even the use of British spelling is considered evidence that one is of the liberal flavour flavor. ... The site is known for its extremist far right political views. As a result, it has consequentially suffered from a wide range of parodist and vandalism-only accounts. Because of this, the site has enacted various forms of censorship, abuse of the "checkuser" function, and groupthink-style "rationalizing". New users, therefore, are almost always blocked shortly after editing for some perfunctory reason.


Andrew Schlafly at the helm.

Rational-Wiki on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia, "The Encyclopedia Any Teenager Can Vandalize", is overly verbose and full of liberal bias, porn, gossip, slander, smear, bias, and atheist propaganda. What's even worse, they occasionally use "BCE" instead of "BC", denying the historical achievements of Christianity. ... In practice, normal people find it quite useful. Sensible ones even realise it's just written by ordinary people and has virtually no quality control, and they know better than to believe something because it is well-formatted and extensively footnoted. It's also quite useful for procrastinators, as it gives them an excuse not to learn about things they should be checking out, and instead jumping from link to link learning useless stuff they'll ever only once use in a conversation only to end up being ignored.


Policies are in place to try to filter out and resist pervasive bias. Unfortunately almost no one agrees on what "neutrality" actually means.

But Uncyclopedia drops the hammer on all of them...

Uncyclopedia on Wikipedia:
A website that parodies Uncyclopedia. It was founded in 2001, when it began its noble goal of spreading the world's misinformation in the most inconspicuous way possible. For this reason, academic experts strongly urge students not to cite Wikipedia. Originally written exclusively in Klingon, the project currently spans all the known languages of history. The English version has over twelve million pages, most of them capitalization redirects. ... The site has gained media attention due to its articles on places, people, and painfully obscure pop culture.


Wikipedia works using a complex network of buckets, cups, donuts, pointy hats, boxes and mysterious spherical objects.

Uncyclopedia on Conservapedia:
The wiki-based online encyclopedia project that purports itself to be "the trustworthy encyclopedia." This motto was chosen collectively by Andrew Schlafly and his sysops over a narrowly losing alternative slogan, "The bullshit encyclopedia. It's just utter bullshit." Little do its poor, misguided editors (known as Conservapedophiles) realize, however, that Conservapedia is actually rife with stinking liberal bias itself and that the only truly balanced wiki which escaped the grasp of those damned commies is the one you're reading right now, Uncyclopedia. While its creator, Andrew Schlafly, wears an elaborate façade of the archetypical conservative: overt piety, disapproval of so-called "science", and dismissal of virtually everything as a liberal plot, the liberal stance of his sad website is manifestly clear to any idiot. He single-handedly shames the United States flag by printing "conservapedia" right onto it. ... This is one of those very rare occasions where Uncyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikipedia frighteningly all agree with each other.


The problem isn't that Conservapedia isn't pro-gun and pro-Jesus. The problem is that Conservapedia isn't pro-gun and pro-Jesus enough.

And don't even get me started on Encyclopedia Dramatica.....


This was taken from the Conservapedia's first article on dinosaurs. I shit you not.

Tags: bias, fun, internet, offtopic
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 41 comments