Home > Silliness, The Right > Conservapedia


A commenter in my previous post linked to a Conservapedia article discussing atheism. I’ve heard of Conservapedia before, but never really paid any attention to it. It’s an amusing and frightening place. Here’s their article explaining the differences with Wikipedia:

We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts.

Wikipedia just has too many words. What stubs have to do with this is beyond me, considering they’re placeholders that would seem to encourage authors to stick to the subject at hand and let others expand on stubbed out subjects.

We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists’ (biased) opinion.

That one is mildly humorous, but much funnier when juxtaposed with this one:

We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as “original research”. Here, we do not restrict research for articles in that manner.

In other words, professional journalists are not to be trusted, but if one of the wingnut-o-sphere’s citizen journalists has a breathless report on the counter tops of someone who disagrees with out fearless leader, it must be heard!

Do real encyclopedias allow original research?

We do not require contributing editors to have to explain themselves constantly and justify every single edit to prove that it conforms to an exacting set of rules which are designed to suppress original thought, new ideas and penetrating insights.

Translation: Wikipedia doesn’t allow us the latitude we need to make shit up.

We do not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research.

Unless you’re a professional journalist. Then you’re to be burned at the stake.

What a strange place.

Categories: Silliness, The Right
  1. Rob
    April 7, 2008 at 1:37 am

    I always enjoyed their article on the fall of the Roman Empire, which (last time I checked) attributed it to Romans’ tolerance of homosexuality. If I remember rightly they rather bizarrely credited Gibbon with supporting such a view—which is pretty funny given that he thought their adoption of Christianity had rather more to do with it, heh.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: