Another blogger suggests that Conservapedia is a hoax designed to make conservatives look bad. He cites this entry, for the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus, which supposedly can be found on the Olympic Peninsula.
From the text:
Their habitat lies on the eastern side of the Olympic mountain range, adjacent to Hood Canal. These solitary cephalopods reach an average size (measured from arm-tip to mantle-tip,) of 30-33 cm. Unlike most other cephalopods, tree octopuses are Amphibian, spending only their earliest life stages and mating seasons in their aquatic environment. Because of the moistness of the rainforests and their well designed skin adaptations, they are able to keep from becoming dried out for prolonged periods of time. (Citation Needed)You have to cite that? Really? The same blogger also pointed to the Kangaroo entry, which is nearly just as bad as the cactus entry.
Like all modern animals, modern kangaroos originated in the Middle East[1] and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood... After the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[2] -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters[2].Can this site be real? I doubt conservapedia as a whole is a hoax. Most likely it has been infiltrated by people who believe the idea is so outlandish to begin with that they have added their own entries that drive the site to the absurd. But the full scope of the site, makes me think it is for real.
Chalk that up to another fun fact for the day: kangaroos rafted to Australia on mats. Them marsupials were sure dedicated to getting there.
Posts
10 comments:
Count me in the column of people who think it's a hoax. The entries are too bizarre and not at all what actual fundamentalists would write. They are using common elements of Wikipedia to poke fun at fundamentalists (e.g. the "citation needed" editorial comments).
If you read things from Jehovah's Witnesses, ID proponents, or other actual fundamentalists, you'll see that their style and tone are quite different, as well as the content and arguments used.
For the record, though, mats of vegetation actually are considered methods by which species spread. Many of the animals found in the Galapagos are believed to have drifted there on rafts of branches and leaves swept out to sea in a storm. While it's unlikely for kangaroos -- which probably evolved from native Australian species after the separation from the other continents -- it is speculated to have happened.
It's Liz here from I Speak of Dreams.
I too suspected it was, or is, a hoax, but it is evidently backed by, or is a project of, Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for the oldest active conservative organization, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (founded in 1943).
I am waiting for more conventional conservatives to express their embarrassment and chagrin over this project.
Of course, if it turns out to be a hoax, I'll be the one chagrined and embarassed.
I forgot to say, one of the things that convinced me it wasn't a hoax was Schlafly's bio on this website, which is from a company that records and redistributes conference proceedings:
Products > The Constitutional Coalition > Educational Policy Conference 18
http://www.actsonline.biz/product_1071_detailed.htm
"The Gay Agenda And Bullying In Our Schools":
"Mr. Schlafly publishes and speaks widely. He is a frequent contributor to www.conservapedia.com a free online conservative encyclopedia that we can all use and build."
It's pretty clear the site has been heavily vandalized by people making fun of it. Andrew Sullivan's contest to find the funniest descriptions tanked the site earlier this morning from the overload of traffic.
I think the site is real, but so overloaded with vandals that it is all but useless and can never be what its creators hoped. I think that if vandalized entries can stand for days without anyone editing them, then it's pretty likely there are very few people who actively support the project and contributed articles.
I imagine that if conservapedia were to continue onward, it will do so only as a place for Stephen Colbert and Onion type jokes. That seems unlikely since the creators would probably cut the site feed before it ran too rampant. Perhaps they already have.
Wow. Looks like I may have to eat some of my words. As it appears others have before me, conservopedia.com is, in fact, registered to a Andrew Schlafly, Esq., general counsel for the AAPS. A little search on the web shows that apart from working against the gay agenda he was filed several appeals to 11th Circuit courts in the Terry Schiavo case. He definitely fits the profile of someone who would create conservopedia.
It now remains to see whether the site is legit or whether it simply began that way and is now corrupted. My money is still that a lot of the entries are phonies, given that there are legions of people who enjoy editing entries on Wikipedia to make a joke (see wikiality and the African Elephant). I'd do an IP search on the editors of the entries I find egregious, but the site appears to be slashdotted. Alas.
At last my 15 minutes of internet fame seems to be on the way!
I' repsonsible for the tree octopus entry. I'm hesitant to admit it on the bigger blogs, as I'm afraid that the admins at Conservapedia will block me and remove my entries.
Yes, the site is for real, and yes, it has been invaded by hordes of folks spoofing articles. The obvious ones get removed fairly quickly. But frankly, even the "real" articles are almost a spoof of themselves.
For most of the articles I submit, I simply find (or make up from memory) the absolute stupidest right wing anti-ACLU and/or creationist crap that I can come up with.
This gives cred with the site owner and most of the admins. Then the occasional spoof article or edit flies by under the radar.
Ken L
I am a Sysop at Conservapedia. If the above is the original author, I'm pretty sure we have figured you out. Yes, the site is for real. Because of "conservative" blogger Andrew Sullivan's attack on Conservapedia, we have received a lot of vandalism. It just goes to show that the incompetent can only resort to personal attacks. Unfortunately for Andrew Sullivan, his attack only furthered Conservapedia's publicity.
I think the tree octopus is strong evidence that at some point, that part of the earth was covered in deep water ...
Wow. This is the funniest comment thread I've had the pleasure of reading in a long time. If "Anonymous" at 11:24 a.m. is not, itself, a spoof, then I must reappraise my evaluation of the "culture war" as it applies to our beloved internets.
Ahhh, yes; Jesusopdedia. Given the plethora of self-aggrandized whackjobs out there, my money's on it being real, at least in the beginning.
The tree octopus bit is classic.
Note to 'jumpers: you can't blame one gay blogger for all your woes. Most of it is because you folks are utterly laughable.
Post a Comment