Conservapedia Revisited

[weaktwos]

I was listening to NPR on the drive home, and Rober Siegal interviewed Andy Schlafly, the founder of Conservapedia.

You can listen to it here.

Andy Schlafly's group has done studies that Wikipedia is 6 times greater than the liberal bias in the American Public. This was done based on polling. 2:1 Conservative to not. The editors on wikipedia identify themselves as liberal, according to their studies.

Schlafly claims that it is impossible to be unbiased in an Encyclopedia, so why even try?

For more fun, read Wikipedia's entry on Conservapedia.

If you take a look at Conservapedia entries, they seem to be very self-referential. It's like Andrew Schlafly's blog, basically. Thanks, but no thanks, Andy. If I want to read third-rate blogs, I'll go back and read my own.

Anyway, listen to the interview. It's rather amusing. Especially Schlafly's comments about the Democratic Party and Thomas Jefferson.

Comments

[saintrigger.livejournal.com]

I heard that while in the shower (the magic of modern water-resistant technology)

I found myself thinking "Golly - is there any evidence that kangaroos were spirited away on a big wooden arc? Cause I think there are fossil records supporting the other theory."

Some people are so adept at making the arguement for the opposition all by themselves.

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

But why let lack of evidence get in the way of the facts?

I wonder which teachers out there want to use this. I fear for the homeschooled kids...

[eyow.livejournal.com]

Golly - is there any evidence that kangaroos were spirited away on a big wooden arc?

Well DUH, it's all written down in a book...The Holy Bible, infallible word of GOD. How is that not enough evidence for you?

(hehe, I can't even type that without giggling...)