Apparently there are some in the Christian community who think our dear Wikipedia
is too "biased" for their liking. These are basically the nutty Creationists and Intelligent Design people. So if you are a Christian, don't think I'm calling you names -- unless, of course, you happen to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old or don't believe in Evolution. In that case...well, to each his own I guess.
So these people have gone and created their own Wiki
Encyclopedia and called it Conservapedia
. (They are using the guise
of Conservatism since most of these crazy peeps are aligned with our country's conservative party).
Instead of having a set of rules, Conservapedia has Commandments
. Hmm, wonder where that idea came from. Lets investigate (highlighted for your pleasure):
- Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
- Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
- Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
- When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
- As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.
- Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
The sheer hilarity of these "commandments" is off the charts. First of all, 1 and 6 are redundant. Personal opinion is, by definition mind you, decidedly not
true and verifiable: opinion and fact are mutually exclusive.
Number 5 is amusing because, really, what the hell is wrong with the British spelling of words? Maybe I like an Encyclopae
dia with an ae
. Or colours. Or maybe I can't stand the letter z (pronounced 'Zed'), so I'd prefer it organise
and not organize.
I guess these people think that because it is not American it is unpatriotic and wrong. Wasn't it their language first after all?
The real kicker here is the snippet on BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. I still can't believe the flagrant violation of the two redundant commandments here; they even try to hide their opinions by claiming it is based on the "historical basis"of the term. I defy them to provide me with verifiable truth
that Jesus was born on December 25th, 1. Sure there is a "historical basis" for the term, but even that historical basis is not based on the supposed truth
they hold so dear. We use the terms BCE and CE because we do know when January 1, 1 occurred on the Gregorian Calendar; that is verifiable and true. By most indications, if Jesus existed, he could have been born as early as 8 B.C.
Peruse the insanity. Entries on CE
, etc, just drip with opinion, and bias, and misnomers, and falsities (oh man, especially Evolution). Don't spend too much time there or you will come out a little dumber; that much should be guaranteed
on their front page.
I really, really want to go on and on about how bad this site is, and how scary the idea of people using it as a resource is, but I don't want to give it anymore thought. It is making me want to cry for our country and planet.
Last time I checked, Wikipedia did a pretty good job providing both sides to every story.
Labels: AD, BC, BCE, Calendar, CE, Christianity, Christians, Conservapedia, Conservatism, Creationism, Encyclopedia, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Jesus, Jesus Crist, Liberalism, Wikipedia