Comments on: Conservapedia withholding of cheesy potato secrets exemplifies all that is wrong with conservative ideas on the free flow of information

By: Isabel

Isabel — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:04:43 +0000

It’s a slippery slope.
But if there’s no such thing as gravity, that shouldn’t be a problem.

Also: this post has taught me that the phrase “cheesy potatoes” becomes really, really funny after a while.

By: links « yellow is the color…

links « yellow is the color… — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:23:58 +0000

[...] More fun with conservapedia from Kyso at Punk Ass Blog, complete with a hilarious conservapedia debate on cheesy potatoes (I’m for the Kellog’s cornflakes on top, not potato chips, for the record). [...]

By: Brenda

Brenda — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 03:21:45 +0000

Another biologist–but I’m going with “Evolutionista.”

By: Kelley

Kelley — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:26:19 +0000

Oh, the idiocy. It burns!

On the other hand, Marc, I’m happily anticipating the day you will begin marketing t-shirts emblazoned with “Valenti’s War Kittens.” Seriously, that entry cracked my shit up!!!

By: Xocolotl

Xocolotl — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:05:55 +0000

A lot of what’s up now was actually posted by Science Blog readers–stealthy, deceptive Darwinists who seek to undermine the validity of Conservapedia. They are so good at blending in that the administrator has actually complimented several of them.

By: Rabbit

Rabbit — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:42:38 +0000

As a biologist I just want to say, I am totally going to start referring to myself as an evolutionist.

By: junk science

junk science — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:31:23 +0000

Nevertheless, I think I’ll be protecting by brain by spending very little time on it.

Can’t the poor bastards have their little clubhouse to themselves? It’s not like they have a whole lot of other places they can go to feel smart.

By: JackGoff

JackGoff — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:02:50 +0000

Coservapedia’s example of “biases” 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 gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.”

“Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as “conservative” compared with “liberal”, and that ratio has been increasing for two decades. But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as “liberal” compared with “conservative”. That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.”

“Wikipedia has as its official policy the following: “If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone.” Yet what does Wikipedia do in relation to its article on Young Earth Creationism? It currently offers a article on the topic listed under the category “Pseudoscience”. What reputable encyclopedia uses such an unencyclopedic tone for an article in regards to creationism? Wikipedia has a history of using the word “pseudoscience” in relation to its article on young earth creationism as a simple check to its log on the article shows.”

And though they appear to have edited it, their page on Relativity suggested that nothing practical has come out of the theory, at least about three weeks ago. And it was up like that for a while. Not sure when they changed it. Anyway, I originally thought it was satire, but I’m guessing it’s the real thing. Fucking morons.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:52:39 +0000

Maybe I should confess I joined Conservapedia (this evening). I have a compulsion to correct things, even on a site like this. Plus I wanted to defend Scouting and the UK Scout Association from being tarred with the same brush as the BSA. Nevertheless, I think I’ll be protecting by brain by spending very little time on it.

By: junk science

junk science — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:56:06 +0000

There is no need to treat gravity so skeptically.

It’s a slippery slope. First gravity, then heliocentrism, then evolution, then buttsex.