February 28, 2007
Okay, Conservapedia does sound pretty hilarious.
February 28, 2007 | Permalink
Jon Swift wrote a funny post about this.
Posted by: litbrit | Feb 28, 2007 2:23:44 PM
Can a online conservative dictionary and thesaurus be far ahead?
It might be a good thing to 'clarify' our political dialogue by having American English split into two separate languages (Liberal English - Conservative English), requiring a translator for every public discussion (increasing the work force immeasurably).
This split has some real advantages, like the split between Shia and Sunni in Islam. The US could alternate which group receives CIA support and which group gets aircraft carriers ranged against it, just by changing the White House occupant.
And surely, a conservative medical and scientific terms set of dictionaries would be a best seller too.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 28, 2007 2:24:01 PM
The Holocaust is not often discussed among the Jews??
Posted by: Marshall | Feb 28, 2007 2:33:10 PM
A spoof, right?
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 28, 2007 2:39:28 PM
Or thoroughly hacked.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 28, 2007 2:51:34 PM
I've wondered if hacking the content on Conservapedia would lead to a Conserva/Wiki war. Actually kind of hoping it will instigate retaliation from the Conserva people, mainly because those guys are probably too dumb to understand that these are globally accessible sites, and that the Right-Wing American viewpoint is shared by less than 1% of the world's population.
Their content would be hacked beyond recognition.
Posted by: PapaJijo | Feb 28, 2007 3:07:48 PM
Wonkette also had some fun coverage.
Posted by: GCF | Feb 28, 2007 3:41:48 PM
Conservapedia is both funny and sad. The most thought-out articles seem to be those that explain and defend the various aspects of Creationism. Many of the mistakes are typical of what a group of high school seniors would make on a project like this. I for one don't assume that public school students would all be able to produce well-written and properly cited articles on all the subjects we find in the Conservapedia.
But I also wouldn't expect to see such obvious examples of an agenda. There aren't too many high school seniors out there who would write a wiki article about evolution claiming that evolution proves there is no God, and if someone did the teacher would not allow it to stand.
I have some nieces and nephews who were homeschooled, and they have done pretty well in college and the workforce. My sister and her husband always took it seriously. She got her BA in education and they turned their garage into a classroom so that there was specific space given over to it. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing or able to take such steps, and there is no regulation involved in people homeschooling their children.
Since these children are eventually going to grow up and enter society, I believe that the rest of us have an interest in just what and how they are being taught. If parents cannot neglect their children's nutritional needs, they should not be able to neglect some sort of basic standard of educational needs either.
The kids involved in this class project were obviously fed several lies. The idea that evolution is accepted by only 10% of the population is one example. If I were a Creationist, I would hope to have enough intellectual integrity to admit that my views are in the minority. Hell, I'm a Christian and I can admit that the majority of the world's population is not, and when my kids start to ask about stuff like that I'll tell them the truth. Since they will go to public school, they'll be in the habit of hearing the truth anyway.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 28, 2007 4:07:03 PM
It's hard to have a conversation about what is opinion versus what's fact when the other side spends much of its time denying the difference between the two. If they believe it, then it's fact. Saddam caused 09/11 because they believed Saddam caused 9/11. "I feel that government involvement in healthcare is wrong," and therfore, regardless of the polls, "most Americans [except liberals] feel that government involvement in healthcare is wrong." It's a circular logic centered on id and ego.
Posted by: akaison | Feb 28, 2007 4:35:07 PM
Stephen, there is regulation for home schooling in every state now, as far as I know. Maybe you're just talking about qualifications for the teachers. The teaching generally has to follow an approved curriculum outline that is tested for by state exams. That doesn't prevent teaching some peculiar stuff in addition, but they have to teach the public school stuff enough to pass the exams.
It's hard to tell now which parts if any of the website haven't been hacked. The 10% claim could be real; it sounds rather like something some creationists might believe, given the qualifier about "as taught in public school" or whatever it was. They probably think that public schools teach something ridiculous about evolution.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 28, 2007 4:38:21 PM
Yet another example of the wingnuts' need to close out the rest of the world and live in their own tightly controlled environment. Brings to mind a funny thing I saw in a "Christian" book store awhile back - in the CD section they had a chart set up near the "Christian Rock" section. It had a list of evil secular popular rock bands like Pearl Jam and Red Hot Chili Peppers, and then a list of their ideologically approved contemporary Christian rock equivalents. You even got a little publicity pic to show you that the band even sorta looked like the real version. Hey, why buy the real version when we can sell you the guilt-free version?
So it makes a kind of perverted sense that they would need their own wingnut wikipedia. They've had their own wingnut world TV and radio stations for years.
Posted by: sprocket | Feb 28, 2007 4:42:38 PM
Stephen, there is regulation for home schooling in every state now, as far as I know.
That's very good to know. As far as how much of the site is hacked, I was on it pretty early, before the bulk of the liberal blogs started having fun with it. Right now they've closed it to new users (I think) and are working on getting rid of both the hacked edits and those users that created them.
Brings to mind a funny thing I saw in a "Christian" book store awhile back - in the CD section they had a chart set up near the "Christian Rock" section. It had a list of evil secular popular rock bands like Pearl Jam and Red Hot Chili Peppers, and then a list of their ideologically approved contemporary Christian rock equivalents. You even got a little publicity pic to show you that the band even sorta looked like the real version.
That's either reason #5,000 or #6,000 why I don't go to Christian bookstores. It's hard to keep track now.
Those lists have been around a long time. It's pathetic. Here's people who claim to be in intimate relationship with the God who gave us our creativity and talent, but the best they can do is imitate "secular" musicians.
There is some "Christian" music worth listening to. If an artist can't be placed on one of those comparison charts, they're probably pretty good. Steve Taylor and Keith Green were never on them.
Posted by: Stephen | Feb 28, 2007 5:28:44 PM
In a hilarious beginner's Wiki-administration error, whichever Sclafly runs the site locked down the article on Jesus after people started editing the site in ways he didn't like. He ind of forgot to check out the text of the article prior to the lockdown (bolding mine, SNAFU theirs):
"The name Jesus is simply the name "Joshua" translated first into Greek, then English. In Christian discourse, the name Jesus almost always refers specifically to Jesus of Nazareth, believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son.  The life of Jesus is recorded in the Bible in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. According to the Gospels, Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and three days later he rose from the dead.
Posted by: jfaberuiuc | Feb 28, 2007 6:04:02 PM
I love the fact that there's no entry for Nancy Reagan, but there is one for Mary Poppins. :)
Posted by: weboy | Feb 28, 2007 9:35:19 PM
I find a subtle irony in Conservapedia's lacking an entry on "The 1/2 Hour News Hour".
The fourteen part "World History Lecture" by Andy Schlafly demonstrates a certain, shall we say, element of vanity.
And why does someone want to delete the article about the XBox 360?
Posted by: Paludicola | Feb 28, 2007 10:01:14 PM
That doesn't prevent teaching some peculiar stuff in addition, but they have to teach the public school stuff enough to pass the exams.
That's only true if the parents want their kids to ever get recognized credit for completing K-12, or to attend a real college. There's a real movement among the Fundie-Right to keep out of the mainstream altogether.
So, if a parent keeps a kid homeschooled (or attending a non-accredited fundie school) through high school, they can no doubt get some kind of spurious 'diploma.' That could probably get them into a non-accredited fundie college of some sort, where they can eventually earn a worthless college degree.
Once they have a 'diploma' or a 'degree,' they can get a low-level job somewhere. Employers, especially on the bottom rungs of the job market, don't check the bona fides of whatever school the fundie kid claims to have attended, only that they did attend and graduated. (Or the kid can get a job with a fundie-approved company, or politician, or think tank - where they'll be even less interested in challenging the kid's education credentials.)
It's a strange parallel universe the fundies are creating. They're raising kids who are trained not to think independently, or analytically; and who will be completely unable to deal with the real world.
Posted by: CaseyL | Feb 28, 2007 10:05:06 PM
Casey, I believe the requirements are the same regardless of what the parents want until the children reach the age at which the law doesn't require them to be in school. If the parents fail to educate the children until that age the state can place them in public school.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 28, 2007 10:44:25 PM
Check out the source code. It's filled with "wiki" this and "wiki" that.
Posted by: Monty | Mar 1, 2007 12:06:50 AM
The Holocaust is not often discussed among the Jews??
A bit of creative editing by August. The article actually states that Jews don't often discuss the fact that the Nazis also killed several million non-Jews. Which is also wrong, but not as wrong as stating that the Jews don't talk about the Holocaust.
Posted by: Newport 9 | Mar 3, 2007 3:35:54 AM
Posted by: judy | Sep 26, 2007 11:08:31 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.