Laugh of the Day: Conservapedia

A discussion with acquaintances led to my discovery a few days ago of the (I'm sure unintentionally) amusing conservative alternative to Wikipedia, Conservapedia.

Conservapedia is a “conservative encyclopedia you can trust.” It is so trustworthy, in fact, that we really need no other encyclopedia entry (or other text) on the internet to inform us about Evolution:

Creationists can cite material showing that there is no real fossil evidence for the macroevolutionary position and that the fossil record supports creationism.

The reason we need no other entry is because according to the Conservapedia “Commandments” about articles on the site, “Everything you post must be true and verifiable.” One of the comments from the Talk page on Evolution is hilarious:

“Many” Christians accept a lot of things, that doesn't make their position Biblical. Only God is incapable of error, and that's why this website follows God instead of the fallible beliefs of Men. You claim that this information is “factually incorrect” but you don't prove it. Besides, the founder of this website has proven, in no uncertain terms, that macroevolution (what most atheists mean when they say “evolution”) is impossible. There's simply not enough time and even if there was, all mutations are harmful. The end. Ashens 14:23 22 Februrary 2007 (EST)

There's really not much one can say to that. I mean, I'm convinced.

It is appears that Conservapedia understands the word “conservative” in a very limited, home-schooled, fundy-evangelical, US-only sort of way that would probably make even the most deluded Islamic fundy seem rational, scientific, and modern in comparision.

But don't just take my word for it (as LeVar might have said). I'm rather fond of the article on (not article of) Faith:

Faith entry from Conservapedia, as of March 1, 2007

Hell, Conservapedia is so ridiculous (and perhaps destined not even to be a footnote but rather a shitstain in the history of the Web?) that it almost reads like a conservative's fear of an evil left-wing conspiracy to discredit right-wingers.

Jin Wicked's comic about Conservapedia, March 1, 2007

source

News of Conservapedia spread quickly, and was soon discussed and parodied in a number of places, perhaps best of which was entry or two over at the venerable Language Log on March, 3, 2007. Ah, Language Log, the place where linguists (particularly socio-linguists), grammar-Nazis (and their foes), and others interested in words and language congregate, and the main interest of those at Language Log is the use, abuse, and criticism of language at Conservapedia, such as those posted on their Conservapedia Commandments page. In short: Un-American spelling conventions are forbidden (as much as possible), as is the use of C.E. and B.C.E. over A.D. and B.C.—these things, you see, are evidence of liberal bias perpetrated by regular ol' Wikipedia.

To conclude today's humor section, I can only recommend the comments over at There's a pattern to see here (“Liberal bias is so un-American”).

—March 8 2007

S.KRAUSE

Laugh of the Day: Conservapedia