religious right launch xian 'alternative' to Wikipedia

[mugs]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: mugs
I know you hate Christians and all (wait I'm sorry - "xians"), but this doesn't even deserve a post here. It's not a real competitor to Wikipedia. It's just a crappy website that some guy started that'll never go anywhere. It's not a concerted effort by Christian groups. For X's sake, it was started by a group of homeschooled children!

there is every chance the moneyed supporters of the republican/ religious right establishment will pump money into the project, & it will end up better funded than wikipedia itself. which would be a travesty.

If that happens, bitch about it.

You know, it's not money that makes Wikipedia what it is. Money is just necessary to pay for the servers.

 

[Conky]

Why is this nonsense not in P&N?

I personally find it offensive at the need of certain gay people to constantly bash Christianity. If this is politically incorrect I don't care... I am sick of militant gays. :thumbsdown:

 

[Fayd]

lol, somebody made a joke website....and took it far enough that some people dont recognize the joke.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Fayd
lol, somebody made a joke website....and took it far enough that some people dont recognize the joke.

It's not a joke website... it's just that a lot of people with opposing viewpoints have defaced the site.

 

[db]

The far right political & religious chose to polarize society, but they spin that *they* are the ones under attack. The general public does not try to change them--it's the other way around. The far right political/religious does not want you to have any choice about anything, and desire that laws be passed to enforce/outlaw your behavior and beliefs if they differ from theirs. This in America, "land of the free".

 

[athithi]

It had a rather nice article on Hinduism...almost pandering. But I don't see the point of a "conservapedia", really. Wikipedia is amazing. On several occasions I have tried to look up the most obscure topics and found them in Wikipedia. Whenever I come across overtly assertive statements, I look for citations and if I don't find them, I take the information with some skepticism. I think that's a fair way to read Wikipedia. The challenge is in adapting information processing according to the medium rather than nitpick about Wikipedia's shortcomings.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Xyclone
What a retarded site. This gives normal Christians a bad name. :roll:

Indeed.

 

[esun]

Hmm, first complaint of bias in Wikipedia links to their article on CE:

http://www.conservapedia.com/CE

Excerpt:

'The only plausible explanation is that "Common Era" is an attempt to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar. But there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names in the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods.

The conclusion is obvious: usage of the term "Common Era" seeks to deny recognition to Christianity. Beware of other examples of this, and beware how schools and tests are converting to "Common Era" dating systems to appease hostility to Christianity.'


I wanted to see what Wikipedia had to say on CE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

It has a pretty extensive section on the arguments supporting and against the use of the notation (starting with "A range of arguments exist both for and against the use of CE and BCE over AD and BC."), with a discussion of neutrality going on. Somehow I find that less biased than the Conservapedia.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: athithi
It had a rather nice article on Hinduism...almost pandering. But I don't see the point of a "conservapedia", really. Wikipedia is amazing. On several occasions I have tried to look up the most obscure topics and found them in Wikipedia. Whenever I come across overtly assertive statements, I look for citations and if I don't find them, I take the information with some skepticism. I think that's a fair way to read Wikipedia. The challenge is in adapting information processing according to the medium rather than nitpick about Wikipedia's shortcomings.

I agree with you, but I suspect that this 'conservapedia' is more about spreading xian propaganda/ dogma and promoting the xian agenda than it is about creating an accurate encyclopedia.

 

[George P Burdell]

"Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American."

The truthiness is strong in this one.

 

[0roo0roo]

heh yea,it could get funny if steven colbert sics his fans on this site


so much material for hilarious articles
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html

 

[Parasitic]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
"#3. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative". That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. "

"twice as many conservatives than liberals" ~ 2:1, or 2/3.
"three times as many liberals than conservativeS" ~ 3:1, or 3/4.

3/4 = .750
2/3 = .667

.750 is in no way "six times more" than .667.

Conservative math FTL.

 

[Parasitic]

By the way the entry on dinosaurs is hilarious.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur#_note-3

"For example, trained scientists have reported seeing a live dinosaur. [4] A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today"

 

[ShotgunSteven]

I just read their entry on Harry Potter, after seeing the Harry Potter thread in OT. It's actually better than I expected.

LINK

 

[Parasitic]

Read this too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

 

[Philippine Mango]

How disturbing..

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: redly1
xian???

WTH

it's just a shorthand for christian

So you were too tired to type out the whole word?

Were you out all day building a tree house or something?

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: redly1
xian???

WTH

it's just a shorthand for christian

So you were too tired to type out the whole word?

Were you out all day building a tree house or something?

Seriously though, who the hell writes out "xian"?

 

[2Xtreme21]

Well, unfortunately, reality has an extremely liberal bias. :roll:

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: thetxstang
Fundies on the loose, FTL.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
FFS....

that's what i said...