Monday, February 26, 2007

It seems that you know so little, and are so easily amused, that I can look forward to a very happy time.

Everybody seems to have their own little favorite bit of the hilarious Conservapedia.

My favorite:

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

From Conservapedia

The growing list of examples of bias and errors on Wikipedia. Please add to this, and also contribute entries to Conservapedia.


2. The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give enough credit to Christianity.

You get the Dark Ages all to yourself. Let's not be greedy.


ladybug said...

Well, with Wiki, it's "Buyer, Beware"; for overall basic info, it's ok, even pretty good.

But since it's not a "peer reviewed" most colleges/universities won't accept it as a source in a paper. Information found in Wiki must to be verified in other ways.

But heck, normally they put up signs like "the neutrality of the this article is disputed", or "this article has been vandalized (which means hijacked). It needs cleanup."

The only thing I don't like is they leave out so much info on living folks...why?

Last but not least, the Renaissance was sometimes critized by some in the good ol' RCC due to the "excessive" depiction of Greek and Roman Deities; They called it "Neo-Paganism"! Ha, Ha!

Good Ol' Pagans, bringing back civiliZation on painting at a time!

Overdroid said...

I can't get to the link, it keeps timing out. They must be using old "internet gerbil tube" technology.

Don Snabulus said...

The Virtual Book of Lies

Dean Wormer said...


Wiki's not perfect by any stretch.

I'll still take it over this conservapedia nonsense.

Paganism saved Western Civilization. The authors of conservapedia's heads are collectively exploding.

Swinebread said...