I was pretty content just reading everybody else’s hysterical comments about Conservapedia, but finally I just had to go exploring a little for myself.
Let me just tell ya’. It’s every bit as hysterical as everyone else says it is. Fundipedia is what happens when you let the fry cook at Pat Robertson’s personal McDonald’s franchise create an encyclopedia.
Right off the bat, let’s take a look at the reason Fundipedia was created. 🙂
From the page entitled Examples of Bias in Wikipedia:
Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.
Not only is that just a meaningless whine, but Fundipedia interchanges A.D. and C.E. itself! (Click on the image for a nice big version.)
Another scholarly exegesis a little further down:
The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give enough credit to Christianity.
Wow, lovely whine. I didn’t truncate that, that’s the whole thing. No evidence, no rhetorical back up, no logic, no nuthin’. Just “Whaaaaaa! My pussy hurts!” Sorry ’bout your luck fellas.
Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English-speaking users are American. Look up “Most Favored Nation” on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling “Most Favoured Nation.” Look up “Division of labor” on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling “Division of labour,” then insists on the British spelling for “specialization” also. Enter “Hapsburg” (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been “Hapsburg”. Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.
Are you shitting me? Seriously. They are actually bitching about non-American spelling of words. Holy thumb sucking, Batman!
Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored. On Conservapedia, contributions that meet simple rules are respected to the maximum extent possible.
I kind of watched some of this go down for a while. There were no “facts against the theory of evolution”. There was whining that “Goddunit” wasn’t included as a valid scientific theory. Some of it wasn’t even dressed in the cheap tuxedo of Intelligent Design Creationism Hoax, it was just “the Bible says” and “atheist conspiracy” stuff.
Let me clue you in on a little something, morons. If you have a fact against the theory of evolution, run straight on over to the publishers of Science magazine. You’ll be the most famous person in history in less than one hour. But until you have that fact, you’re just another nutjob who thinks he knows more about biology than thousands upon thousands of biologists.
Oh, and I’d like some fries with that when you get back on the register. Thanks.
Here’s my personal fav:
Wikipedia removed and permanently blocked a page identifying its many biases. Wikipedia omits any meaningful reference to political bias in its 7000-word entry Criticism of Wikipedia.
WTF? Wikipedia removed and blocked a page criticizing Wikipedia and doesn’t even mention it on this 7000 word page criticizing Wikipedia! Those censoring bastards! Fascists! How dare they not allow critici… oh wait.
Oh yeah, you’re a genius. Can I get a Sprite with no ice, too?
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. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about “Moby” and “song”. Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles — perhaps over half its website — are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
Well, let’s just see all the educational value dripping all over Fundipedia.
Age of Metal article:
That’s the first sentence. It also happens to be the entire article.
The Cuneiform is the earliest form of writing. It was invented by the Sumerians around 3500 BC. Cuneiforms were made by pressing a sharpened reed into a soft clay tablet to make wedge shaped letters.
Oh wow! Lots of good stuff there! Two sentences AND A PICTURE! I’m feeling very edumakatard.
Pretty much all the ancient history sections run just like that, with one notable exception.
Mesopotamia (Mes-uh-puh-tay-mee-uh) was an ancient civilization that lasted from 3500 to 500 B.C., when it was conquered by Persia
Civilization began in a region known as Mesopotamia, which is Greek for “land between the rivers.” The “rivers” are the Tigris and Euphrates, located in Western Asia, in fertile areas of Iraq northeast of the desert. This region is known as part of the “Fertile Crescent” that extends along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (including modern Israel, Lebanon and Syria) and the fertile valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that run southeast into the Persian Gulf. These rivers deposited silt in the surrounding land, creating rich alluvial soil. Today the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are not far from the location of our soldiers in Iraq. However, our soldiers are mostly pictured in sandy areas, while the ancient people would have stayed close to the water. Moreover, ancient floods would have changed the landscape over time.
Genesis 2:8-17 (NAS) describes the beginning in Mesopotamia as follows: “The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. … Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. … The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.” Using the ages mentioned in the Bible and counting backwards, biblical scholars have dated this as about 6000 years ago, or about 4000 B.C. This is about 500 years before our earliest record of ancient writings.
This article goes on for some length, but quite honestly, that’s all I need to see. If you’re using the bible as your only source of history (and they are), you need to get back on the fry vats. I don’t think you can handle the register, dude.
I’m not going to belabor the point any further, and better minds than mind have already ripped apart the “science” articles. I think you get the gist of what passes for “encyclopedic scholarship” over at Fundipedia. Nevertheless, I look forward to more articles from Fundipedia. I believe it has the potential to rival Uncommonly Dense for humor value.