Conservapedian obsession

by Richard on November 21, 2007

I hadn’t come across conservapedia before, so I doff my cap to my friend Bene Diction for introducing me to this gem and contributing towards the completeness of my education.

conservapedia, for those ignorant souls like me who haven’t heard of it, is a conservative response to the ubiquitous wikipedia.

Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears? Conservapedia began in November 2006, as the class project for a World History class, meeting in New Jersey, of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students.

Conservapedia has since increased in size exponentially, with individuals contributing all over the world. Conservapedia already exceeds the number of entries in the Oxford Dictionary of World History, and is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind.

Let’s not point out the irony of responding to “liberal bias” by flaunting a conservative bias. That would be childish. Instead, let’s join BD in looking at the real interests of those naughty wikipedians

User statistics

There are 15,504 registered users, of which 27 (or 0.17%) are Administrators.
Most viewed pages
1. Main Page‎ [1,910,105]
2. Homosexuality‎ [1,582,870]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [517,247]
4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [420,919]
5. Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [392,936]
6. Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [388,342]
7. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence‎ [373,029]
8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [331,617]
9. Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [292,567]
10. Homosexual Agenda‎ [270,084]

BD has jumped to the hasty conclusion that those who use this magnificent resource are sexually obsessed. Clearly, this is absurd. I’m sure that these pages are popular because they provide valuable information to legitimate researchers. After all, I’ve never seen any other evidence that conservatives are obsessed with homosexuality. Have you?

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

1

dh 11.21.07 at 9:57 pm

Conservapedia sounds like a wonderful site and appreciate what it offers. I appreciate its concerns which while it appears to be on anti-homosexual issues I’m sure there are others that it addresses as well. We live in a cultural war and of those issues one of those happens to be to address the promoting and/or support of homosexuality against Scripture.

2

Kim 11.21.07 at 10:31 pm

Richard and BD, you must understand that if conservatives are obsessed with homosexuality, it is only because they are concerned to save the souls of the poor benighted buggers. They hate the sin, but they love the sinner. Ask any gay or lesbian Christian and they will tell you how welcomed, listened to, and understood they feel in conservative churches, not to mention accepted and valued by the unconditional grace they are shown. Well, nearly unconditional. I mean the welcome mat says “Turn or Burn” - and you can’t say fairer than that.

3

Larry B 11.22.07 at 12:33 am

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of statistics would realize that this isn’t a statistically probable result. It’s most likely the result of a designed effort by some clever hacker. The pages aren’t well protected after all. Google “conservapaedia statistics” and notice the trail of the story on the internet through the blogosphere and newsboards.

It’s unfortunate that it’s being picked up and treated as fact so quickly without even a hint of skepticism. Everyone wants to believe the stereotype so bad, reason goes out the window.

4

Bene D 11.22.07 at 5:30 am

Larry,

You think it’s a hack?

I think I speak for Richard, I certainly speak for me. Show us. Prove it. Skepticism is a healthy thing. I’ll post, I’ll post why it was hacked, who got hurt and all the facts you’d like. And if Richard is too busy, I’ll post your proof at BDBO and here. I did Google it, btw. And Technorati’d it.

There was plenty of time for refute by the time I got around to researching it. I just rechecked btw.
I did Google it. And Technorati’d it. And did a news search.

Not a peep out of Eagle Forum people and it’s well over 24 hours. You think the Schafly’s and horny home schoolers would let this just go?
Yeah, right.

While you and DH trip over the point, we’ll wait.

5

Bene D 11.22.07 at 5:50 am

As a matter of fact Larry I’ll start you out.

Go look at cache. Go into the Wayback machine.

Is Conservapedia a target of vandals? Yes.
Wired Magazine: 02/28/07

“With all of the attention, vandals quickly followed. The site’s entries were edited to include parody-style riffs on topics and bogus source citations. Schlafly says most of the vandalism was edited out or under control within a week, and that the site will continue to thrive.”

and…

“While CreationWiki remains mostly unscathed by the web’s parodists, Conservapedia has fallen victim to countless attacks. One entry in particular has gotten a great deal of attention: the page about a tree-dwelling mollusk called the Pacific Northwest arboreal octopus.”

Well?

6

Beth 11.23.07 at 12:38 am

I had a browse around on Conservapedia, and was thinking that it seemed pretty inoffensive. Then I got to some of its political pages. The entry on George W. Bush shows an astounding level of pro-Bush bias. And compare its entries on “conservative” and “liberal” - it would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous and insidious. This is clearly not a site that aims in any way to be unbiased or objective.

It may be a useful resource for a particular section of society which wants nothing more than to bolster its already-held beliefs, but it has absolutely no value as a general, reliable source of information.

7

Richard 11.23.07 at 5:09 pm

You should read the stuff they’ve got about global warming. Absolutely barking.

8

Beth 11.23.07 at 5:39 pm

Oh yes. Woof woof.

9

dh 11.26.07 at 4:37 pm

On the subject of global warming, I got to watch on CSPAN Bjorn Lomborg (writer of this book
http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307266927
)

Have anyone ever hear him or read his books? He is considered to be one of the top 100 most influential people in the world in 2004. His skepticism is misunderstood. He believes in Global warming. He just believes that we need to do the most efficient was to save the most lives and still address the global warming issue. He is a very intelligent and well prepared man who understands the balance we need to have to address this problem. See Richard, I said global warming is a problem. :) I still believe like Bjorn that we need to proceed to solve this problem in the most efficient and cost effective way to maximize lives and help the greatest number of poor people that can done.

I’m definitely going to read this book. His discussion on TV was amazing.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>