Wiki wars

In an attempt to counter Wikipedia‘s "anti American, anti-Christian" bias, there is now a conservative version, called (imaginatively)  Conservapedia.

Take "global warming" as an example of Conservapedia’s "content you can trust":

On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."[3]

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .[4]. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.[5]

Is this hilarious, dangerous, or just plain sad?

9 thoughts on “Wiki wars

  1. I’d add scary, terribly scary, when so little logical thinking is in evidence, for there are a lot of these people about.

  2. I sometimes think these items are made up just to see the reaction.
    The “inconvenient truth” that Al Gore’s Nashville mansion uses 20 times the electricity used by the average American family has to be one of the best stories of the year.
    I am just a little suspicious that the story broke at the very moment when he might have announced he was running for president in 2008.

  3. Are we sure that Conservapedia is not some sort of satire? Here’s part of the entry for Jesus: “believed by Christian followers to be God’s dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son.”
    Doesn’t sound like your standard Christian line to me.

  4. Frank, you may be on to something, at least in some of the entries. But then have a look at the article on abortion, for example.

  5. The wikipedia format is, by definition, subversive. I think what Frank may cleverly have detected could be the “empire [liberal athiests] strikes back” syndrome, via their editing of conservapedia entries?

  6. Yes, that’s what I meant, Maxine, though I prefer your ’empire strikes back’ way of putting it. And I seem to recall reading something online about the Conservapedia slowly getting this ‘problem’ more or less under control, but I can’t remember where I saw it.

Comments are closed.