Conservapedia

[ayabe]

DINOSAURS. They may not exist, but they're just launched their own online encyclopaedia. Conservapedia claims to be 'a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American.'

Rather than having anything as mundane as posting rules, Conservapedia has Commandments. The first Commandment is ' Everything you post must be true and verifiable.' Strange that, I always thought it was 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' But Conservapedia is 'the encyclopedia you can trust' ? apart from knowing how to spell 'encyclopaedia', obviously ? so I must be mistaken. Oooh, hang on, Commandment Five says that American spelling of words must be used. And as everyone knows, both Jesus and his dad were born in the USA.

Coming back to Conservapedia's First Commandment, it will be interesting to see exactly how any reference to the Bible will be verified as fact. Obviously, as a new site, many subjects have yet to appear, or are in need of expansion. This is the full article on Iraq, for example:

A Middle-Eastern country, currently occupied by U.S. Troops.

We feel sure that all God-fearing INQUIRER readers will step up to the plate and fill in a few of these gaps for them. If you don't, the turrists will have won.

******************************************************************
The INQ


Is this necessary? Are there others out there who see Wiki as un-American? I would certainly agree that it's not perfect, nothing can or ever will be.

I think this is another example of a concerted effort by various groups, some left wing and some right who are constantly trying to create alternate versions of the 'truth' because what is currently out there doesn't jive with their agenda.

This happens a lot on these boards but there comes a point where you have to draw a line in the sand, otherwise you get things like pamphlets being handed out in national parks stating that the Grand Canyon was caused by the Great Flood.

There are instances where the axiom that there are two sides to every story doesn't have legs, there are certain absolute truths that are not a matter of interpretation and must be accepted as fact so that our society can function. Otherwise we become mired in wild conspiracy theories centered around trying to discredit everything about everything. This is counter-productive and a step backwards for America and the rest of the world.

 

[techs]

Can't get Conservapedia to load. And I was looking for some humor to brighten up my day.

 

[palehorse]

it appears to be offline...

 

[catnap1972]

Does Conservapedia also have those nags that appearing parts of the articles (regarding "unverifiable facts")? Though in their case it would more likely be "BASELESS RHETORIC FROM TERRORIST LIBERAL MEDIA--NEEDS TO BE EDITED"

 

[JungleMan1]

Meh, as a right-wing conservative, I've never seen too much bias in Wikipedia, and if I do I just edit it out as I see it. No real encyclopedia will claim to be left-wing or right-wing biased. I think this idea is more out of generating a few bucks than out of principle.

 

[dahunan]

This is like their version of PBS since they think the truth is always biased against them

 

[DealMonkey]

Conservatives need their own version of reality too. Pffft, retards.

 

[Moonbeam]

Conservatives are having a bad case of cognitive dissonance right now. They have the one and only truth and it has f@cked them in the behind. They are proud individualists and egotists whose ideology is there to pump their heads up but the War in Iraq has flattened them like a train wreak. What do you do with all that hubris and ego when the world demonstrates every day that everything you believe and all your instincts are completely up side down. Delusions can only be maintained by more delusions. When the wolves of reality howl, the sheep pack close together. BAH BAH BAH, I don't hear any wolves. You?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: JungleMan1
Meh, as a right-wing conservative, I've never seen too much bias in Wikipedia, and if I do I just edit it out as I see it. No real encyclopedia will claim to be left-wing or right-wing biased. I think this idea is more out of generating a few bucks than out of principle.

This is the core of why Wiki works, it's a living encyclopedia that can be changed when and if necessary.

I don't see this as being much of rival, except as maybe for an outlet for some extreme wingers to interpret history through their eyes.

I see this as part of much larger problem with ever increasing attempts to control information that is accessible to people. The whole Google in China thing, I find it disgusting, and making a few bucks in China isn't worth selling your soul. I thought this week some judge ruled in favor of allowing Google to do this(someone was suing them), because of 'free speech', which seems oxymoronic. I might be getting it wrong, didn't read the whole article.

I saw a program a few months back about how most teenagers in China don't know anything about Tiananmen Square, since every reference to it has essentially been stricken from the record through extreme censorship and manipulation of the facts.

Essentially if Google is choosing to do this in China, who says they can't do the same here?

 

[JungleMan1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservatives are having a bad case of cognitive dissonance right now. They have the one and only truth and it has f@cked them in the behind. They are proud individualists and egotists whose ideology is there to pump their heads up but the War in Iraq has flattened them like a train wreak. What do you do with all that hubris and ego when the world demonstrates every day that everything you believe and all your instincts are completely up side down. Delusions can only be maintained by more delusions. When the wolves of reality howl, the sheep pack close together. BAH BAH BAH, I don't hear any wolves. You?

The antithesis of what the Right stands for is not necessarily "the truth". Maybe it's the truth in your eyes that everything the Right stands for is bad and everything the Left stands for is good, but that does not make it the absolute truth. By challenging what extreme-right-wingers believe is truth with your own biased version of the truth, you are no better.

This is why resources like Wikipedia exist and are not biased towards the right or the left. They explain the factual details of world events, and may possibly include the opinions of others but do not endorse either side. Wikipedia works so well because right-wingers can edit out leftist bias and left-wingers can edit out rightist bias (and likewise, intellectually honest individuals from both sides will edit out any bias regardless of where it originates from).

In theory, Liberalpedia would be just as bad as Conservapedia. I have the intellectual honesty to admit that anyone taking Conservapedia seriously is sorely mistaken, but should a left-wing version of this site exist, would YOU have the intellectual honesty to admit that it too is biased and should not be taken credibly?

 

[DealMonkey]

Frankly, the "Conservapedia" smacks a little too strongly of young college Republicans trying to "think outside the box." Like starting a white college fund, or playing hide-and-seek-the-illegal-immigrant, or whatever nonsense passes for a cheap political stunt these days.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: JungleMan1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservatives are having a bad case of cognitive dissonance right now. They have the one and only truth and it has f@cked them in the behind. They are proud individualists and egotists whose ideology is there to pump their heads up but the War in Iraq has flattened them like a train wreak. What do you do with all that hubris and ego when the world demonstrates every day that everything you believe and all your instincts are completely up side down. Delusions can only be maintained by more delusions. When the wolves of reality howl, the sheep pack close together. BAH BAH BAH, I don't hear any wolves. You?

The antithesis of what the Right stands for is not necessarily "the truth". Maybe it's the truth in your eyes that everything the Right stands for is bad and everything the Left stands for is good, but that does not make it the absolute truth. By challenging what extreme-right-wingers believe is truth with your own biased version of the truth, you are no better.

This is why resources like Wikipedia exist and are not biased towards the right or the left. They explain the factual details of world events, and may possibly include the opinions of others but do not endorse either side. Wikipedia works so well because right-wingers can edit out leftist bias and left-wingers can edit out rightist bias (and likewise, intellectually honest individuals from both sides will edit out any bias regardless of where it originates from).

In theory, Liberalpedia would be just as bad as Conservapedia. I have the intellectual honesty to admit that anyone taking Conservapedia seriously is sorely mistaken, but should a left-wing version of this site exist, would YOU have the intellectual honesty to admit that it too is biased and should not be taken credibly?

Sadly.. this country is run by people whose voters listen to Conservative talk radio and tv for TRUTH

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservatives are having a bad case of cognitive dissonance right now. They have the one and only truth and it has f@cked them in the behind. They are proud individualists and egotists whose ideology is there to pump their heads up but the War in Iraq has flattened them like a train wreak. What do you do with all that hubris and ego when the world demonstrates every day that everything you believe and all your instincts are completely up side down. Delusions can only be maintained by more delusions. When the wolves of reality howl, the sheep pack close together. BAH BAH BAH, I don't hear any wolves. You?

All I can say is what a bloated piece of horsepoop. Moonie likes to read his own posts.

Arrogance is not just a conservative trait. It has been mastered by Libs in their own humble way. :roll:

flamesuit on!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservatives are having a bad case of cognitive dissonance right now. They have the one and only truth and it has f@cked them in the behind. They are proud individualists and egotists whose ideology is there to pump their heads up but the War in Iraq has flattened them like a train wreak. What do you do with all that hubris and ego when the world demonstrates every day that everything you believe and all your instincts are completely up side down. Delusions can only be maintained by more delusions. When the wolves of reality howl, the sheep pack close together. BAH BAH BAH, I don't hear any wolves. You?

All I can say is what a bloated piece of horsepoop. Moonie likes to read his own posts.

Arrogance is not just a conservative trait. It has been mastered by Libs in their own humble way. :roll:

flamesuit on!

Great, you admit that conservatives have a problem with arrogance. That's a beginning.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: JungleMan1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Conservatives are having a bad case of cognitive dissonance right now. They have the one and only truth and it has f@cked them in the behind. They are proud individualists and egotists whose ideology is there to pump their heads up but the War in Iraq has flattened them like a train wreak. What do you do with all that hubris and ego when the world demonstrates every day that everything you believe and all your instincts are completely up side down. Delusions can only be maintained by more delusions. When the wolves of reality howl, the sheep pack close together. BAH BAH BAH, I don't hear any wolves. You?

The antithesis of what the Right stands for is not necessarily "the truth". Maybe it's the truth in your eyes that everything the Right stands for is bad and everything the Left stands for is good, but that does not make it the absolute truth. By challenging what extreme-right-wingers believe is truth with your own biased version of the truth, you are no better.

This is why resources like Wikipedia exist and are not biased towards the right or the left. They explain the factual details of world events, and may possibly include the opinions of others but do not endorse either side. Wikipedia works so well because right-wingers can edit out leftist bias and left-wingers can edit out rightist bias (and likewise, intellectually honest individuals from both sides will edit out any bias regardless of where it originates from).

In theory, Liberalpedia would be just as bad as Conservapedia. I have the intellectual honesty to admit that anyone taking Conservapedia seriously is sorely mistaken, but should a left-wing version of this site exist, would YOU have the intellectual honesty to admit that it too is biased and should not be taken credibly?

You would be wrong to assume that my opinion on the antithesis of the right is the left. They are both upside down in my opinion and have huge commonalities in their thinking.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Sadly.. this country is run by people whose voters listen to Conservative talk radio and tv for TRUTH

and from the pulpit from the likes of Ted Haggard.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

My concern with WikiPedia is that they do not police their editors and when they are caught with dishonest editors they defend them instead of booting them. This calls into question the whole integrity of Wikipedia


http://www.metafilter.com/59052/On-Wiki...-youre-a-24yearold-with-no-credentials

 

[cwjerome]

The Wiki idea holds potential, but not in the current wikipedia form.

Jason Scott does an excellent job summing up the failure of Wikipedia.

 

[Red Dawn]

I never knew wikipedia was considered a legitimate source. I mean you wouldn't use it for a term paper.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I never knew wikipedia was considered a legitimate source. I mean you wouldn't use it for a term paper.

My organic chemistry professor (who graduated from Berkeley) distributes notes to our class that were printed from Wikipedia. But, they are mainly just facts regarding characteristics of certain elements and organic compounds.

 

[Jhhnn]

As Steven Colbert points out, Facts have a Liberal Bias, and can't be trusted, so something like this is obviously necessary.

Should be amusing, anyway...

 

[Starbuck1975]

As Steven Colbert points out, Facts have a Liberal Bias, and can't be trusted, so something like this is obviously necessary.

What is even more amusing is the knee jerk reaction from the typical anti-Bushites to this story, which comes from the Inquirer of all sources.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I never knew wikipedia was considered a legitimate source. I mean you wouldn't use it for a term paper.

That's the problem, Wikipedia is a failure, or a success, or liberally biased, depending on what you were expecting Wikipedia to be. cwjerome, and the author of the article he linked to, clearly expected Wikipedia to be some transcendent culmination of human knowledge, achieved through a perfectly formed, intellectually democratic system. They are bound to be disappointed, as this was not only the first try, it was in many ways not intended to do that. Conservatives looking for some intellectual hand-holding are going to be similarly disappointed, as they are in every other facet of information gathering, which might explain why "conservative alternatives" to everything are popping up left and right, but very few liberal counterparts seem to exist.

But when you look at what Wikipedia HAS accomplished, it's nothing short of remarkable. It doesn't go into a ton of detail, and some of the stuff might be wrong, but for getting a good high level view of a subject, I challenge anyone to find a quicker method. If I want to know exactly how the RC4 encryption algorithm works, within a few minutes I can have a complete description, complete with an analysis of strengths and weaknesses, and example code written in C. If I want to know what kind of public transit is available in Chicago, I can find out within seconds. Both of those things would have taken a great deal more time before Wikipedia, and while the information gathered in other ways might be more complete or more accurate, I'd argue that in many situations that is the less important factor. The other thing worth keeping in mind is that it's constantly changing, so problems that exist today will almost certainly be ironed out eventually. Problems obviously exist, but the fundamental idea is pretty good.

And just in case you're wondering, I've never edited a Wikipedia article in my life...I just think it's a pretty cool idea, and the detractors' problem seems to be unfounded expectations.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

There is a difference in kind between different cultural systems. There are open systems, with the finest examplar being science. These are systems that assume doubt, and build tranformation/revolution into themselves.

And there are closed systems:

See any religion. In these cases, all essential truth is assumed known. Any empirical evidence is judged solely in light of its conformance to ideology, so anything simply confirms the system.

Most "philosophical" systems:

Systems that come from introspection or revelations. Two sides of the same coin, have that problem. Conservatism, by its nature, assumes the primacy of tradition and authority, so by its very own definition is closed.

 

[Fern]

Well, my take is that wiki has been successful, and with all things successful someone will come along and try to duplicate it (and compete).

I think the "conservative" thing is overblown, we're just looking at their manner of trying to differientiate this from the original.

Fern