A conservative’s answer to Wikipedia (2007)
latimes.com
latimes.com
Some enterprising individuals edited Wikipedia which then propagated onto Google. I don't recall what it was, but it was a funny troll job. Google has since pulled the this feature and pulls data from other places for the quick feature.
Unfortunately, that creates another problem of SEO trash cluttering up Google. It's a pain to find anything useful anymore on the internet.
Literal quote from their article on e=mc2[1], in bold on the original, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about the site.
Conservapedia isn't "Conservative", it's 100% beholden to Andrew Schlafly's personal views and opinions, many of which are idiosyncratic, to put it nicely. Things like "Mystery: Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?"[2] demonstrates how open-minded he is towards other views.
There are many (unintentional) hilarities on the site, too many to list here. But any serious Conservative is embarrassed by it.
Aside: funny enough, one of the few things I actually agree on with Andy is that AD/BC is better than CE/BCE. The difference is larger – reducing confusion – and replacing it just seems like needless churn to me.
[1]: https://www.conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc%C2%B2
[2]: https://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Why_Do_Non-Conservativ...
sorry but being conservative and trustable are contradictory at the same time
For better or for worse, I have a giant encyclopedia Britannica print books in my office library which the kids love. I browse through it for fun and even on political topics Ive noticed their editorial board does a stellar job of maintaining a neutral point of view.
I feel like the levels have increased over the past few years.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-stochastic-te...
As usual, everyone is affected by stochastic terrorism except whites. Because in those cases, attacks are "random", and entirely divorced from the rhetoric prevalent in academia and the media. This will eventually be used as a pretext for censorship.
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2022/12/11/stochastic-terror...
https://gab.com/thuletide/posts/106756852117838315
> There are basically four issues that actually matter in modern politics:
> 1. The worldwide genocide of Whites
> 2. The destruction of the family
> 3. The destruction of Christianity
> 4. The rapidly encroaching totalitarian, China/USSR-style technocracy
Read the replies for some fun insight into the type of people who agree with you both!
When the truth isn't on your side, all you're left with is mudslinging and misdirection.
Equating "misinformation" with terrorism and hate speech is hyperbole designed to rationalize the paradigm. My intent in citing that article was to illustrate the extreme lengths authoritarians are willing to go in terms of exaggerated rhetoric.
People are increasingly upset by challenges to their worldview. They identify so closely with the narratives that define their tribe. There's also some inconsistency here when they simultaneously celebrate themselves as tolerant and inclusive.
Another inconsistency is the claimed moral distinction between "punching down" and "punching up". Interesting how offensive dissent from mainstream narrative has become. It is easier to empathize with and understand the frustration of those in the minority view. Wikipedia and the entire media agrees with their claims, yet they are traumatized by disagreement? You'd think they'd be more confident and comfortable in their position.
Conservapedia is a collection of re:re:re:re:re email forwards sent by your dumbest relative. The first few articles I clicked on
Vaccines:
> Many vaccines, including the Covid vaccines, are based on aborted fetal tissue, apparently as a way to try to increase public acceptance of abortion.
> There are numerous reasons why many people prefer to avoid vaccines, but laws and other rules (often pushed into place by those who stand to make significant profit) frequently mandate them.
Quantum Mechanics:
> Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics describing fundamental uncertainty in subatomic behavior.[1] Observation converts infinite uncertainty about where a particle is into a definite position. The logic of quantum mechanics predicts the possibility of the Resurrection, akin to quantum tunneling.
Atheism:
> Not possessing a religious basis for morality, which can provide a basis for objective morality, atheism is fundamentally incapable of providing a coherent system of morality.[1] See also: Atheism and ethics and Atheism and the problem of evil
> For example, atheists have been the biggest mass murderers in history (see: Atheism and mass murder and Atheistic communism, mass murder and sociopathic leaders). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to atheistic communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987 (See also: Atheism and communism).[2]
Wikipedia doesn't represent "objective truth" in my view. Nor do I agree with everything Conservapedia has to say.
Do Wikipedia editors claim divine revelation as a source, or are they just omnipotent? As a point of fact, Wikipedia editors get into their own brand of legalese where they decide which establishment press sources are canon. So maybe the CNN reporters are omnipotent or acquire information via divine revelation? No, this is plainly false. Trivial research will reveal that both CNN reporters and online encyclopedia editors are fallible humans.
Worth thinking about the premises involved here. If objective truth exists, is it accessible for humans? Some would go as far as saying it doesn't exist at all. Not my personal view.
There are axiomatic propositions we can understand to be true independent of our fallible senses. Two parallel lines will never meet. A triangle has three sides. Men are fallible, imperfect observers and prone to corruption. I'd rank these much higher in precedence than anything Wikipedia has to say.
YMMV, but starting from these premises I try to exercise a bit of tolerance when encountering different views.
There's a contingent of online fact checkers, would be censors and their fellow travelers pushing a scientismic world view. I do take exception with this promotion. Invoking "objective truth" is symptomatic of this meme. Personally I find it more concerning than fringe views.
In some senses, different views are great, as are opportunities to hone your beliefs against competing beliefs. I've changed my mind on some issues due to reading competing beliefs. My home town newspaper (Denver Post) would run Paul Krugman editorials in the business section regularly, and the now defunct Rocky Mountain News would run Buckley and Sowell.
The issue I've got with Conservapedia and the like is that it's basically bad faith automatic gainsaying. After a while, countering bad faith opposition becomes a waste of time. Lies run around the world twice before truth gets it's shoes on, as Ben Franklin once said. It gets tiresome repeatedly spending thought on an editorial writer, only to discover once again that their reasoning is cleverly disguised circular.
Wikipedia's systematic bias is supported by a few methods: meticulous curation of its pool of "reliable sources" and rejection of any pool of sources which disagrees with existing zeitgeists, as well as the ability of an established user base to form and enforce consensus and then give marching orders to the rest, on pain of bannination.
It's somewhat peculiar, if you are able to consider extremists utterly dispassionately, that Wikipedians support and encourage extremists who support certain ideologies, we may assign algebraic monikers such as G, B, P, or L. But Wikipedians also frown upon extremist ideologies that are opposed to their zeitgeist, such as naturopaths, Christians, Nazis/white supremacists, or nationalists of any sort who aren't from the US or British Empire.
So neutrality on Wikipedia just means that they will support the same extremist ideologies propounded by their list of sources, and supported by the major contributors to articles, policies, and consensus. And that they will tone down the language so that it is dispassionate and "encyclopedic" unless an article is explicitly denouncing an extremist ideology they don't like, and in those cases they explicitly waive their policies on phrasing and words to avoid.
It is unsurprising when you consider the ideology which launched Wikipedia in the context of F/OSS. F/OSS and GNU are explicitly extremist--perhaps we can consider them lawful good extremist ideologies--but if you've paid attention to anything written by rms, Cory Doctorow, esr, or other F/OSS proponents, you can't deny that they've gone to extremes to keep software (and other stuff) free and open.