February 24, 2007

Whiny Wingnut Wiki

97X - BAM! — The Future of Rock and Roll!

Drama! AdamG at Universal Hub briefly posts on the subject of “Conservapedia.” Adam’s post is not the drama.

Conservapedia itself is the drama. Touting itself as the alternative to supposedly “anti-Christian and anti-America” Wikipedia, the most popular page that it serves up reads like Raymond Babbit’s “serious injury notebook.” That page would, of course, be “Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.”

Check out some of these gems culled from the whiny complaint list:

Injury #1: Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D.

Holy moley. It allows the use of “common era?” That must mean it acknowledges that not everybody is a Christian! If you’re interested, read about the controversy over C.E. vs. A.D. at ReligiousTolerance.org. It’s a term first used in theological writing as an acknowledgement that a term which was not Christ-centric would be more respectful to the majority non-Christian world population, yet not disrespectful to Christians. But, note the whine… Wikipedia allows C.E. Presumably, this means that Conservapedia enforces A.D. To save your virgin Christian retinas.

Injury #5: Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words

Touché

Injury #6: Wikipedia distorts the youthful acceptance of deism by Benjamin Franklin

Apparently, they can’t handle the fact that our founding fathers were not as Christian as they would wish them to be. Even more amusing is that Conservapedia talks about nothing other than their wet dream that Ben Franklin was a Christian in their entry on the man. So, Conservapedia doesn’t waste your time with info that can easily be found elsewhere (a.k.a “the facts”); it instead goes straight to the propaganda.

Injury #8: Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.

It’s their example that makes this one fun. They object to an anecdote in the entry for Nina Totenberg which describes an accident which happened on her honeymoon. Apparently stories are verboten!!! Oops, sorry — forbidden.

Injury #9: Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.

In contrast, Conservapedia allows any old nonscientific bullshit in its articles, so long as it sounds like something you might hear Michelle Malkin say.

Injury #10: Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases.

This must have been their “were going to take our deflated, pale, fantasy-based ball and go elsewhere” moment. However, the page to which they refer looks plenty active to me.

Injury #11: Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value.

Wikipedia doesn’t claim 1.5 million articles of “educational value by the standards of its critics.” In any case, their moronic example is to search for “moby” and “song” together and you find over one thousand entries. And your point is…? I guess Moby isn’t conservative enough, so he shouldn’t be listed in online databases. Wow - so freaking whiny. And, by the way, quite a number of the thousand or so entries mention Moby but aren’t actually about Moby.

Injury #15: Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance;

Translation: “We’re used to living in a place where our views are given disproportionate credence, even when they’re wrong, just by virtue that we shout them loud enough. In our fantasy world, both sides of an issue should be presented: the factual side and the conservative side.” Seriously. They’re arguing that a neutral or expert opinion needs to be balanced with their childish view. The example they use is evolution. Next up, we’re going to start voting on math and science. PI = 3, anyone?

Injury #16: Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an elementary proof.

Wrong. Next.

Injury #20: Wikipedia’s article about the late Senator John Tower includes a mean-spirited story […]

Squeezed and pulled and hurt your neck in 1988?

Wikipedia definitely has its problems. The internets are filled with articles about that. To see those problems interpreted as liberal bias by wingnuts is not unusual. The internet is also rife with wingnuts interpreting sensationalism in the media as liberal bias, greed as liberal bias, and pretty much every other motivation as liberal bias.

But what makes this amusing rather than just tiresome like most such rants is that this is a microcosm of a common wingnut phenomenon of victimhood. Used to living in a society where they look around and see white conservative Christians all around, they are used to their conservative bias. The “We’re #1” mentality is steeped into their skin. But then a funny thing happens. The internets are a scary place, because now they see people coming together to find common ground, and it turns out that their ideas have to compete with other ideas! And sometimes, their ideas are found lacking. But the house of cards is so fragile that the loss of one idea is fatal to the whole illusion. This you have injuries such as another person spelling “favor” as “favour” is an affront that simply cannot be psychologically tolerated.

Luckily, there is now a place to run to, Raymond “Wingnut” Babbit, when you’re frantic and it’s just one minute left to Wapner.

Posted by James at February 24, 2007 12:00 AM
Create Social Bookmark Links
Comments

It's impossible to take it seriously. Is it meant to be a parody?

Posted by: Chuck S. at February 24, 2007 11:37 AM

Apparently it's for real and was created by the guanophrenic creationist whacknut Andrew Schlafly.

Looks like some conservative fruitcakes are bound and determined to live in their own special reality.

What they really need is their own planet (other than this one.)

Posted by: Chuck S. at February 24, 2007 11:53 AM

Read some of the entries; they're quite hilarious. I really enjoyed the one about Jefferson, in which they cite two wikipedia pages as sources.

From their "about" page: "Tired of the LIBERAL BIAS every time you search on Google and a Wikipedia page appears?"

They may be tired of it, but darn, it sure is easy to use it as a reference.

LOL.


Posted by: Maggie at February 24, 2007 2:17 PM

I think "liberal bias" is the new Communism. In the McCarthy era, fear of Communism was used to justify all sorts of political horse sh*t. Now the right are using "liberal bias".

Posted by: briwei at February 26, 2007 7:51 AM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved