Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia"
m (Reverted edits by 24.99.102.249 (Talk) to last version by Woozle) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | + | I want to say - thank you for this! | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
==Links== | ==Links== |
Revision as of 17:33, 8 August 2009
I want to say - thank you for this!
Links
Reference
- Wikipedia
- Conservapedia
- main page
- Debate: should atheists be barred from Conservapedia?: some interesting claims about atheism
- dKosopedia
- SourceWatch
- Rationalwiki
- Conservapedia:Atheism: A point-by-point discussion/refutation of Conservapedia's article on Atheism (still being set up as of 2008-05-24).
Filed Links
Discussion
- 2007-02-28:
Blake Stacey said, on Contrary Brin (internal links added): | ||
I discovered a few days ago that the Conservapedia article on judicial activism had been written by a parodist. This bloke, going by the 'nym of "DrShaffopolis", said the following:
He then confessed at Pharyngula. "Earwig" added the following text, including references to FOX News:
"Conservinator" then added a blurb at the end, "and that case where the judge decided to murder poor Terry Schiavo, just because she was in a wheelchair." The project's Fearless Leader, Andrew Schlafly, then reverted the article to its previous state, keeping all the additions of DrShaffopolis and Earwig. Not too surprisingly, the joke article soon got uncritically accepted by a blogger looking for material to laugh about. Conservapedia was so hammered by traffic (thanks to its publicity at ScienceBlogs.com) that it took me ten minutes to load the page revision history and see what had really happened. Neither the person who wanted to make fun of it nor the man being mocked could tell they were falling for a parody! The satire has become the object of ridicule; the map is now the territory. | ||