« who would jesus shitcan? | Main | let the love flow »
March 5, 2007
good wiki, bad wiki
Wikipedia allows everyone to contribute to its encyclopedia's articles, and that allows us to arrive at Truth—or if not Truth, some sort of triangulated approximation of it. Anyone in the world may edit its entries.
Clearly, Wikipedia has a liberal bias.
Fortunately, some enterprising right-doers have created a new wiki repository for Truth. You can tell it's unbiased because they call it "Conservapedia." And you can tell it's conservative because they don't mention supply-side economist Jude Wanniski or Congressmen J.C. Watts or Orrin Hatch.
As the site points out, Wikipedia is guilty of liberal bias on 29 documented occasions. For example:
- The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give enough credit to Christianity.
- Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words
- Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases
- Wikipedia's errors spill undetected into newspapers
- For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution, Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution. Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.
It's about time.
In fact, if you search for "evolution" on Conservapedia, you're immediately redirected to the "Theory of Evolution" article. A search for "intelligent design," on the other hand, leads straight to the article "Intelligent Design."
The "affirmative action" article is an unbiased masterpiece, dispensing with meely-mouthed critical thought and getting straight to what needs to be said. Its first sentence:
Affirmative action is an area in which government policy is contradictory.
Smiting bias at every turn, Conservapedia tells us that Islam has origins in Paganism, that "significant studies" show that homosexuals aren't born that way, and that the Spanish Inquisition was a method of torture. And finally, someone got the Crusades right. The fourth Crusade was tragic because it "never reached the Holy Land and ended with the crusaders’ sacking Constantinople—a Christian city."
"It seems that the Christian armies lost sight of our goals to bring and spread love and Christianity along the way, " the unbiased author continues. "The Crusades went against our Christian teachings."
posted by john at 7:59 AM • permalink