Atheism and Morality from Conservapedia

[trdsf]

Here's what Wikipedia says about Conservapedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

Here's what Conservapedia says about Wikipedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia

Each is critical of the other.

Perhaps, but I know which one I'd rather go to for references and links.

[SGOS]

Perhaps, but I know which one I'd rather go to for references and links.

It's just more of the conservative perception that all media, science, and history is biased and must be rewritten.  I'd heard of Conservapedia before, but never used it.  It sounds so much like the real thing thatI never wondered about it until I read the OP.

[Mermaid]

That is hilarious.

[Jason78]

How can you doubt that this article is true? It says right up in the corner that Conservapedia is the trustworthy encyclopedia!

Well they wouldn't allow them to publish it on the internet if it wasn't true.

[Atheon]

Hahaha! Conservapedia! Hahaha!

[Johan]

Here's what Conservapedia says about Wikipedia:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia

I love what they say about the ability to edit wiki pages.

Most of Wikipedia's articles can be edited publically by both registered and anonymous editors[2], mostly consisting of teenagers and the unemployed.[3]

[Mermaid]

Oh I SO want to edit some conservapedia pages.

[SGOS]

I love what they say about the ability to edit wiki pages.

The whole concept of allowing the public to alter information in an encyclopedia is strange indeed.  I'm often surprised that Wikipedia hasn't been destroyed by every wanker with a computer and an opinion.

[Johan]

The public can edit, but the public and, page subjects or subject owners I believe, can also have inaccurate changes removed. I clicked on the wiki page for U2 once because I was trying to remember so old tidbit about them. It just so happened that a short while earlier someone had edited their main bio and inserted a story about how they had a fifth member named Stan or some such whom they'd met at a bar and hit it off so well they asked him to join the band even though his only talent was playing the jaw harp or something like that.

I checked back a few times to see how long it would last. I think it stayed up for a day or so before it was taken down.

So yeah, anyone can write anything they like about anything. But just like kids on a playground, the group tends to police itself most of the time.

[SGOS]

Yeah, I watched an ongoing battle like that that went for at least a couple of weeks over the definitions of agnostic and atheist.  It may have gone on longer, but I got tired of watching it.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Right wing nutjobs co-opt yet another notion of wisdom? Say it ain't so Joe!

[trdsf]

The whole concept of allowing the public to alter information in an encyclopedia is strange indeed.  I'm often surprised that Wikipedia hasn't been destroyed by every wanker with a computer and an opinion.

They're reasonably good about self-policing.  The thing about Wikipedia is not necessarily the articles themselves, but it's a fantastic clearinghouse for links, so instead of taking the Wiki's word for it, you can check out the source material for yourself.

I mainly patrol for obvious vandalism, and grammatical/typographical errors.  I don't feel expert enough in anything to do any more than write clarifying material.  I only can think of one substantive edit I made, in a section on estimating the Drake Equation.  It was just after some new research that provided a better estimate on the number of stars with planets, which is one of the terms.

I don't like writing articles because I don't like being edited.  I choose my words very carefully and in most circumstances consider editing to weaken my undeniably epic prose.  :)

[SGOS]

I mainly patrol for obvious vandalism, and grammatical/typographical errors.  I don't feel expert enough in anything to do any more than write clarifying material.  I only can think of one substantive edit I made, in a section on estimating the Drake Equation.  It was just after some new research that provided a better estimate on the number of stars with planets, which is one of the terms.

So are you part of a Wikipedia staff or something?  To patrol Wikipedia seems like a labor intensive undertaking.

[trdsf]

So are you part of a Wikipedia staff or something?  To patrol Wikipedia seems like a labor intensive undertaking.

Oh, jeez, no.  Just when I'm bored and feel like being pedantic for a while.  Usually I'll spot a typo while on a wikicrawl and fix it, and that puts me in the mood for doing a little editing and I'll see if I can stumble across anything else.

I'm the sort of person who can be dropped completely out of a book by a typo; I have to set it aside and pick it up again later.  I edited an APA for four years--the damn things hit my eye like a boxing glove and I go immediately from "reading for pleasure" mode to "reading as an editor".

Once in a while, they can be really hilarious -- one OCR system rendered the name of American Revolutionary Ethan Allen as "Ethan Alien"... which suggested a whole different kind of 'green mountain boys'!

[Mr.Obvious]

Conservapedia is the single best example I can think of when I argue that it's hard to distinguish between actual religious and right-wing views and satire thereof.
When I first came across it. I laughed my ass of because I figured it had to be satire of conservatives. It reeked of paranoia and close-mindedness. It took feeble attempts to deny evidence and other points of view to an extreme. Naturally I thought it was a joke on how desperate and self-delusional the '(christian) conservative right wing' view was this day and age.
When I figured out it actually wasn't a joke, it just became sad.