|
www.conservapedia.com
I listened to a story on yesterday's All Things Considered (NPR), that I think will get many of you fired up. A group of "conservatives" (read: religious right), have set up a competing web encyclopaedia to Wikipedia. One example of the difference between the two is that Conservepedia uses Creationism to explain just about everything. They say that Wikipedia is too "liberal" in its approach. I'm sure that many of you are going to hate it, and a few will love it. They even stole Wikipedia's design! As much as I have doubts about Wikipedia, I find this new site quite disturbing. :(
www.conservapedia.com |
I don't hate it; it's hilarious.
|
It's WONDERFULLY hilarious, especially all the invaders articles that they dont notice and forget to delete. There're more liberals posting there than conservatives.
They deleted my article on the handicapped, though... |
This is outta control..
http://www.conservapedia.com/images/...n-dinosaur.jpg |
I've seen that before.
Pretty funny. |
Quote:
|
Yeah, I noticed that warning on their main page. Can they actually take any action under US law?
|
Read the selection on the Patriot acts... too funny!!!
|
They can; however, there's no way it'll succeed.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I was thinking we should do a parody thread but it looks like that won't be necessary.
|
people like that scare me.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Read the page on Earth's moon if you feel like a hearty laugh
|
Does this seem phobic to you?
Homosexuality From Conservapedia (Redirected from Homosexual) Jump to: navigation, search Homosexuality is a sexual attraction between members of the same sex. It is condemned by the Bible as explained below. ... |
Yes, yes it does seem phobic.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
They miss a lot. I wonder why the conservatives seem so outnumbered?
Oh wait. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
My contribution: 1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God? 1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world. |
5. Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God.
that's one hell of a "may"! but..if.. there's only one god.. and 'he' is running the whole schebang then wouldn't all the solar systems in all the universe have only one sun?.. oh! right! because we're the only inhabited planet in the whole infinite universe! sorry... I forgot. wow... look up dinosaurs.. back in kansas the prevailing theory among the whack-jobs.. er.. I mean religiously hardcore (by which I mean the neo-christians) is that dinosaur bones were placed in the earth by the devil to test our faith.. haven't found if crapopedia here espouses that theory yet.. |
Have fun and read the article on Ann Coulter, it's defense of the 'faggot' remark, and complaints about the double standard held by the press in protesting those remarks.
|
Quote:
|
Who made that rule, I've never heard it before, which doesn't have any bearing, but strange nobody has mentioned it. I know you are a repository for a wealth of stuff we mortals don't know. :D
|
You have to log in to edit pages.
Oh dear. I wonder why that is? Perhaps they don't want anonymous users slapping {{dubious}}, {{false}} and {{NPOV}} tags all through the articles? The article on the Moon is so hilarious. The sad bit, however, is that some people might actually take it seriously. |
A.D. means "Anno Domini" or "In the Year of Our Lord" as in "On the 14th of May in the Year of Our Lord 1607 the Jamestown Colony was established."
B.C., meaning (years) Before Christ, comes after the date, as in "Cleopatra reigned in Egypt from 51 to 30 B.C." If you're using B.C.E. and C.E., (Before Common Era and Common Era), those both come after the date. As usual, Wikipedia has more complete poop. |
Quote:
From the Oxford dictionary: BCE • abbreviation before the Common Era (indicating dates before the Christian era, used especially by non-Christians). CE • abbreviation 1 Church of England. 2 Common Era. |
You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".
"Much prefer?" |
For "ketchup"...emphasis mine:
As part of changes proposed by the USDA and implemented into law, ketchup was declared a vegetable by the Republican Reagan administration on March 9, 1981; this was "so public schools could include it in their balanced meal plan," However, liberal critics charged that it would allow schools to count ketchup as a vegetable in place of "real" vegetables like potatoes and the like. After a volcano of negative publicity, the USDA and the Reagan Administration stopped refering to condiments as vegetables. |
Quote:
:rolleyes: |
B.C. and A.D. only exist in Christainity as numerous ego-maniacs have tried to stop / change tiime.
for instance, September would have been the 7th month, October the 8th month, November the 9th month, December the 10th month. As i am not a scientist, i present this in laymens' terms. :p |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Liberal Bias in Wikipedia
The funny thing about this idea, that Wikipedia is a biased, Liberal source, is that Wikipedia is a collective repository of knowledge into which all are welcome to make additions. Conservative viewpoints, such as they exist in society, have exactly the same chance of being represented in Wikipedia as any others.
What we have here is a lack of bias being misrepresented as a bias because a certain group of people are resentful that their own bias is not represented. Furthermore, what Wikipedia represents, on one level, is a toppling of the old standard information model: that message control can be coordinated through a few central sources, IE mass media outlets. In this case, a small group, whose wacky ideas have been over-represented in the past, are finally seeing a realistic balance of ideas, and they don't like it because it exposes them as the fringe group that they are. Somebody call that waaahmbulance. We're gonna need it more and more frequently, it appears. |
Quote:
I was just going to say if you are bias towards a topic, wouldn't even a nonbias article seem bias. Americans have to remember that the middle for America is very right leaning in world politics. |
it's catsup
|
And it's biased, while we're at it.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Here's the diff. Thank "Godman".
|
Oh wow...does Wikipedia have a similar function? I've never delved that hard into it to notice.
|
Yup, that's wiki functionality. Without something like that, recovery from vandalism would be virtually impossible.
|
Quote:
Historians for centuries have accepted year one AD as a starting point to move forward, and this coincidently gives year one BC a starting point moving backwards, that has no artificial limit. So being tied to some calendar that starts at 1, but does not recognise anything before that date, would be like tying our hands behind our back. It does not matter that the Christian method was adopted. It does not matter that Jesus was likely born somewhere between 4 BC and 7 BC. The BC/AD system has worked. Personally, I would prefer to stick to BC/AD rather than BCE/CE, but as I said previously, historians decided that the old terminology was offensive to too many people, so they changed it. BTW, I started this thread saying that the conservapedia worries me. I do not support it in *any* way. My concerns with Wikipedia are that entries can be added and modified by anyone, regardess of the validity of what they write. The "editors" are just random people on the Net. There is no vetting of their knowledge or experience. Jim Wales admitted this in an NPR interview some weeks ago. |
Quote:
Is it possible my post led him to make the change? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
i'm an atheist, but i also agree that Jesus did exist, was not the son of god, but was a cool character i would have liked to have known. |
Government types are just compelled to fool with time. ;)
|
Bluesdave, I missed something back there. What was your beef with wolf's and/or wikipedia's version of the labelling of dates?
|
all governments are warmongers.
there is no such thing as "in the public interest" : politicians pursue their own agendas. the national health service in the UK is suffering due to Thatcher bringing in the Nuclear War Strategist from the cold war (forget his name) to overhaul the service and set targets and performance criteria etc. to be achieved by any means. the colour of skin doesnt matter to me ; the person and their culture does. kids should be seen and not heard. |
Given the simple linearity of the BC/AD system, I'll stick with it, rather than something on the order of "In the fifth month of the third year of the Reign of Elizabeth II ..." Dating based on monarchs gets very confusing, very quickly.
|
Quote:
BTW, I don't recall seeing AD placed before the date. As far as I recall it is always after the date, just like BC, so you would say 2007 AD. Note that I am *not* an historian, I just have an interest in history, so I could be wrong. I have a heap of history books. I will have a look through some of them later in the day. |
Quote:
I've done this before. |
Quote:
whoops! :o |
I was wrong. I have flicked through several of my books on Ancient Egypt, and they all place the AD before the year. My apologies to Wolf. :thepain:
My interest in Ancient Egypt really decreases after the end of the New Kingdom, so I am used to reading BC and BCE, not that this gives me any excuse. :yeldead: |
I just checked with the Oxford dictionary, and here is a snippet:
Quote:
|
It's almost enough to make me wonder if Andy Schlafly is a Poe (Poe's law - religious fundamentalism):
Quote:
|
The only reason it's "almost," HM, is that you are willing to remain deceived about conservatism, in spite of all I can do showing off our smarts and our ability to get at the heart of things. Calling it "conservapedia" when it's more nearly "yahoopedia" suffices to deceive some, and reinforce their shallow, specious views about anyone to the right of Woodrow Wilson. Need that include you? Christ almighty -- why?!
Something very few Dwellars consistently understand is that anti-scientism is not a good litmus test either for Conservatives or for Christians. It is primarily an indication that somebody didn't get any science to speak of, or couldn't handle the amount he did. The lack of understanding calls, as always, your degree of enlightenment into sharp question. For just one unconsidered assumption, is it necessary to reject evolutionary theory to see truthful things in Genesis? Is the converse necessary? Neither is: consider when Genesis was written and who it was written for -- a people who hardly had writing, let alone any science whatsoever, and it was written for the first time in the Bronze Age. That's damned early. And Genesis can be read from an evolutionary viewpoint and taking inspiration from evolutionary understanding too -- try it for yourself if you are constitutionally indisposed to accepting UG's words on their face; if you can show you understand it better than UG does, good for you. (Now UG better lay off the third person -- his hair's thinning enough as it is.) The remarkable thing is not the details that Genesis got wrong, but the quite-a-few details Genesis got right. "Let there be light." How's that for a poetic, yet simple, reference to a Big Bang? Sure, the inspiration for the thought came from late in Dark Star, and I can't deny it, but really! The worst you can say of it is it's concise. |
Minuscule-letter AD? First I've heard of it, and it seems to me infelicitous. Writing it out in full in lowercase seems happier. It is an abbreviation, and are not abbreviations usually capitalized?
Wow -- Resurrect-o-Thread. Guess ideas spring forever green if they're deep enough. |
"Let there be light" is as far as it gets before it gets everything else wrong (even while still in "day" one - day and night before planets? What does that even mean?). But I guess you could call everything else details.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.