Whacko-Pedia
Sent in by Jim E
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" ... as long as the truth conforms to the principles adhered to at Conservapedia.com .
That's right, the right-wing believes that Wikipedia is riddled with non-truth. What Wikipedia strives for–a doggedly open debate about facts–results in what conservatives feel is a liberal bias. How very interesting. And so, Conservapedia was born.
The Los Angeles Times covered an article in today’s paper about this.
It fascinates me for several reasons.
First, this new wiki is frought with outright lies mixed with a good deal of status quo truth. This will cause it to appear as a viable resource to some, and result in the spread of misinformation. This is exactly the type of thing people fear from the original Wikipedia, but which hasn’t manifested itself to any great extent. Until now.
Second, it appears as if the Religious Right (truly the term "conservatives" would be too broadly applied here) have so thoroughly gone off the deep end that they require a parallell set of resource tools to corroborate their story. I can see it now: radical right-wing Senators will be quoting Conservapedia as a credible source on the floor of Congress. The resulting uproar would appear as hair-splitting.
Third, this causes me grave concern. It is appearing more and more as if America has two distinct cultural groups. I may sound like an alarmist here, but the last time the country was so polarized that the two groups could not agree on how words are to be defined, the outcome was not pretty. A nation needs a single culture and zeitgeist to be unified. It doesn’t appear that we currently have that.
Fourth, I encourage everyone to contribute facts to Conservapedia, as in their case, the Truth truly Shall Set Them Free.
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
"The Truth Shall Set You Free" ... as long as the truth conforms to the principles adhered to at Conservapedia.com .
That's right, the right-wing believes that Wikipedia is riddled with non-truth. What Wikipedia strives for–a doggedly open debate about facts–results in what conservatives feel is a liberal bias. How very interesting. And so, Conservapedia was born.
The Los Angeles Times covered an article in today’s paper about this.
It fascinates me for several reasons.
First, this new wiki is frought with outright lies mixed with a good deal of status quo truth. This will cause it to appear as a viable resource to some, and result in the spread of misinformation. This is exactly the type of thing people fear from the original Wikipedia, but which hasn’t manifested itself to any great extent. Until now.
Second, it appears as if the Religious Right (truly the term "conservatives" would be too broadly applied here) have so thoroughly gone off the deep end that they require a parallell set of resource tools to corroborate their story. I can see it now: radical right-wing Senators will be quoting Conservapedia as a credible source on the floor of Congress. The resulting uproar would appear as hair-splitting.
Third, this causes me grave concern. It is appearing more and more as if America has two distinct cultural groups. I may sound like an alarmist here, but the last time the country was so polarized that the two groups could not agree on how words are to be defined, the outcome was not pretty. A nation needs a single culture and zeitgeist to be unified. It doesn’t appear that we currently have that.
Fourth, I encourage everyone to contribute facts to Conservapedia, as in their case, the Truth truly Shall Set Them Free.
To monitor comments posted to this topic, use
.
Comments
Reminds me of the schism over at Democratic Underground when the Woo-Woo members split off and formed "Progressive Underground"...
Sickening...
John of Indiana
I am not an American and I don't live in the States. If my comment sounds naive to you, that will be the reason.
In Canada, at the citizenship ceremony, they encourage people to keep their culture and their traditions. At my ceremony, we were told to love our home countries and to preserve our values because they represent who we really are.
Your post--which I enjoyed--ends with a desire to have a unified culture in the United States.
My question is, is that really possible? Given that the United States, like all the other industrialized nations, has a multicultural community?
Just wondering.
Can they have it both ways?
I have not come out to many people, for many reasons,but one is the dread of being demonized simply for my lack of belief.
Nadene
I think you can get a good feel of the site just by looking at the 'Debate topics' section, where nearly every topic is mysteriously connected to a Christian issue. Something that caught my eye in the religious debates section.
"Is the Pope the Antichrist?"
Of course when I clicked the link it said the entry had been deleted. Go figure. Funny though, I thought Catholics were Christian. Guess it's not sufficient anymore to claim belief in Jesus. You have to believe in whatever brand of Christianity they espouse.
I honestly don't know why they wasted the time creating different categories for the debates.
A couple of my favorites: "Why are God's works always questioned?" under 'scientific debates' and "Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?" under 'political debates.'
The word 'ridiculous' doesn't even begin to do justice.
Really, though, it disturbs me that folks are promoting such a schism. Perhaps the fact that I'm pretty liberal clouds my perception, but Wikipedia has always seemed neutral overall. These folks are so dissatisfied with the wonderful ideas behind Wikipedia- in other words, so dissatisfied with the results of mass collaboration and knowledge compliation- that they have to start their own, admittedly skewed "encyclopedia"? I find that very disturbing.
Can you tell I'm a loyal Wikipedian? ;)
I just wanted to say that I don't think Canada has a personality. Thats not an insult but when I think of any other country certain assumptions come to mind as to its people. Outside of Quebec and the Quebecois how would you describe the average Canadian? Canadian culture was never forged out of trial and conflict and never fought for its right to exist.The United States culture has been referred to a "melting pot" in which everything going in meshes together to become one. The differnce extends to the government styles as well. The US has a strong central government and Canada has a weak central government with the provinces holding more power in most circumstances.
I am rather fond of Wikipedia as well. In most everything I have seen, it usually lets the reader know when there is a lack of citation or if the article can be improved, etc. I appreciate that it strives to be secular.
I am inclined to agree with you that your liberalism may cloud your perception. Wikipedia aims to be secular; you simply interpret this as 'neutral,' but to the Christian this may reek of liberalism, atheism or something thereof. Hence the need for 'Conservapedia.'
I think one of other main things they object to is that Wikipedia does not feature a daily Bible verse to remind them that they are still Christian.
"The US has a strong central government and Canada has a weak central government with the provinces holding more power in most circumstances."
Lorena
All systems of government have advantages and disadvantages. My question to Jim E. was in no way an affirmation that Canada is better than the U.S. It was just an honest question about how he feels his dream of uniting the culture can be accomplished.
But I do not believe that the U.S. has succeeded in creating a melting pot. The racial polarization I've observed there is extreme and not something I would want to be part of.
Student Panel's Decision
After much debate, the Conservapedia Panel has finished reviewing the Theory of Evolution page. We have determined that the article will remain protected indefinitely, to protect it from inevitable vandalism. We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution.
John of Indiana, I live in IN too, in Indy. What about you?
nm156, thanks for your reply. Good points!
On-topic, this sort of media outlet for distorted ideas is just another channel for preaching to the converted. People looking for objective information will continue to turn away from FoxNews and Conservapedia, but these things serve to promote party unity and ignorant conservative newspeak. That's double plus ungood.
But thats not what you get at Wikexpedient!
They are dominated by anti Christian moderators, who sure as HELL are going to detete you or make sure you are swarmed by watch dogs for the party line.
Who ya kiddin, boy?
Run along, kid.
Spoomonkey
Your question is a good one. I supposed I didn't make my point very well. America will always represent a "tossed salad" of ideologies. The over-riding cultural ideology, however, has always been reason and tolerance--even if it were grudging at times.
Canadian girls rock in the sack... And isn't that enough to respect a country?
Lorena:
Amen to that!
"As opposed to the true God, other gods have been proposed throughout the history of mankind. The term god is applied in a general sense to any deity that is worshiped as part of a theistic belief system.
"
"# When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE."
Har har!! -Wes.
Oh, no!! And these people are serious!! Help us all if this mentality catches on!!! Ha ha ha!!
As a rule I never use date references that validate the absurdity of christianity, however, if BCE and CE will piss them off..................I'm in!
Noell
Post a Comment