bias and wikis and poedias

Jim at Blogora points readers to Conservapedia, a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. Their main page notes:

Conservapedia has over 3,400 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics, as well as more than 350 lectures and term lists. There have been over 252,000 page views and over 14,800 page edits. Already Conservapedia has become one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet. This site is growing rapidly.

Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian “C.E.” instead of “A.D.”, which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance.

I am not sure why Conservatives view inclusiveness as “anti-Christian.” For example, “C.E.” is used by secular and inclusive folks not because they are anti-Christian, but because they want to be inclusive of the five billion people on earth who do not believe in Jesus as the son of God and the marking point of the fulcrum of time.

But that’s a minor point. This is an interesting case of Internet activism. I guess there was a Wikipedia page on Conservapedia, but it was taken down because Conservapedia lacks notoriety so far. The discussion on Wikipedia for and against the article’s inclusion is here. It appears to be full of assertions (rather than arguments with claims and support).

Conservapedia has a list of examples of Wikipedia’s biases, which seem interesting, but often asinine. The pedia’s discussion on their CE entry is interesting as well, and seems obsessed with Judaism (though I can’t for the life of me figure out why). Also, they seem obsessed with the fact that CE wasn’t in the 1972 Merriam-Webster dictionary, as if that means it’s not a valid word (so the dictionary creates our language? why not have a discussion about the bias of a dictionary printed by a large publisher?). Their CE article notes:

The only plausible explanation is that “Common Era” is an attempt to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar. But there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names in the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods.

The conclusion is obvious: usage of the term “Common Era” seeks to deny recognition to Christianity. Beware of other examples of this, and beware how schools and tests are converting to “Common Era” dating systems to appease hostility to Christianity.

Someone’s note in the discussion reads:

There’s probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably do have something to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something.

It’s nice to see a spec of intelligence there. Yes, it’s about diversity, mainly about inclusiveness. I find AD (in the year of our lord) offensive because for 5 billion people on this planet (who are largely forced to use the Gregorian calendar because of Euro-American colonialism and hegemony), Jesus is not the lord. It’s that simple. Why force people to use terms that are, in essence, colonial?

But I’m kind of ranting here. What I find most disturbing is the conservative/liberal dichotomy, when neither of these “sides” seems to recognize that they are merely minor shifts from each other in liberalism: they both believe in abstract individualism, ahistorical understanding of society, Euro-American hegemony, minor reform (rather than qualitative change), the public/private dichotomy, and a refusal to attack the root causes of oppression.

Anyway, I’m done with this. Better things to think about.

This entry was posted in Internet culture, Uncategorized, Wikipedia. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to bias and wikis and poedias

  1. Jon Swift says:

    I think if you take a look at some of the fine entries I’ve collected from Conservapedia, you’ll be bowled over by its scholarship.

  2. “Lunaticfringeapedia.”.

    They claim that wikipedia is biased, in their entry “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.”

    However, all the bias I see is coming straight from Conservapedia.

    Here is an example of bias taken from their own site:

    “Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America.”

    This obviously shows bias with statements like “we favor Christianity and America.” If you favor something you admit that you have a preconcieved bias towards it.

    Another huge example of the lunatic fringe bias:

    “You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of ‘political correctness’.”

    Concise answers free of political correctness? So they admit they are free of correctness?

    The lunatic fringe goon squad tends to consistently place their misguided ideology over reality, remaining willfully blind to the fact that its ill-conceived from the start.

    Of course, Conservapedia is hardly the only evidence that the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Another giveaway is right-wing attack blogger Michelle Malkin, whose work has been repeatedly criticized for its cavalier attitude toward facts.

    All this is bad news for the conservative movement, which will only become more marginal if it continues to embrace its lunatic fringe.

    This does however bode well for the progressives who stand to gain the most from conservative’s self-destruction.

    While the lunatics are busy imploding we can get busy taking over running the country.

  3. Edward says:

    Wikipedia is a most retarted source in the internet. Don’t pray on wikies. =/

  4. Michael says:

    Edward, thanks for visiting and I appreciate your comments here and elsewhere. But I fail to see how Wikipedia can be considered a human with an IQ of less than 70, by which I mean please don’t use words that are meant to describe people (often in a demeaning or disparaging way), such as “retarded,” to insult other things on this forum.

  5. David Miller says:

    Jon Swift,

    Can you find a single error in the atheism article at conservapedia? I don’t think you can.

  6. Michael says:

    I doubt Jon Swift will answer this, but I will. I just had to skim to find “the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.” Actually, the Bible makes no mention of homosexuality, as it was written in Greek and Hebrew. Any mention of homosexuality is a modern translation and is a bad translation. This is simply because homosexuality was not imagined/created until the 1860s. Before then, there were people who engaged in acts, not homosexuals and heterosexuals.

    Single error: found. I’m sure there’s more.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *