Comments on Erik Emery Hanberg: The Politics of the Cactus

I saw this somewhere on the web and it speaks volu...

2007-03-28T10:58:00.000-07:00

I saw this somewhere on the web and it speaks volumes.

"Advocacy of Intelligent Design (ID) is indistinguishable from parody of ID".

Such is much of conservapedia. I just cannot tell the difference between the parody and the delusional rants from the christian mythologists.

heh what a dumb story about the cactus , just as d...

2007-03-07T07:16:00.000-08:00

heh what a dumb story about the cactus , just as dumb as the origins of the kangaroo

http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo

To the comment above , vandalism on conservepedia? Conservepedia is an rape of wiki, thats worse!

The fact of the matter is that every blog that cri...

2007-03-05T14:39:00.000-08:00

The fact of the matter is that every blog that criticizes Conservapedia uses the same articles as examples over and over, yet they fail to mention that these articles are the result of vandalism. Mistake, I think not. Idiocy on the part of incompetent blogs, very possible.

In fairness, I think the page is a satire. It was...

2007-02-27T12:45:00.000-08:00

In fairness, I think the page is a satire. It was created just last Thursday. The claim that Opuntia, aka the prickly pear, comes from near Greece is way out in left field. And the picture of two very similar species of catii with the conclusion that it's impossible they're related.

But that final paragraph is the real clincher.

On the other hand, the natives believe that the Saguaro are the incarnations of their ancestors. Because Intelligent Design endows the required designer with no attributes other than intelligence (it need only be an intelligent agent), the view that the giant Saguaro are reincarneted ancestors of the native population is a preferable scientific explanation to that of Darwinian evolution.

If WP didn't have a "liberal" bias, one might expe...

2007-02-27T12:07:00.000-08:00

If WP didn't have a "liberal" bias, one might expect a bit smaller outrage against competitors or those who claim it has such a bias.

And, while I don't have any figures, I'm going to guess that WP editors are majority "liberal", due to the presumption that they're majority young rather than old. Considered in the aggregate, that will tend to make most edits "liberal".

WP's policies also favor MSM sources and strongly disfavor "self-published" sources. By doing so they favor largely "liberal" MSM/mainstream thinking.

Here's a fun challenge to bloggers:
1. Someone other than me condemn the vandalism that "liberals" have wrought on CP.
2. Which links at WP don't have the nofollow tag, where do those lead, and how much would that be worth to the receiving sites in the open market?

I think if you take a look at my piece on Conserva...

2007-02-27T10:03:00.000-08:00

I think if you take a look at my piece on Conservapedia, you can see it's a very serious endeavor.

It smells like a hoax to me. But there's a lot of ...

2007-02-27T08:08:00.000-08:00

It smells like a hoax to me.

But there's a lot of irony in claiming Wikipedia has a "liberal bias". The largest donor to Wikipedia is the conservative Lounsbery Foundation - which funds global warming skeptics and other fellow-travelers. The Foundation is headed by David Abshire, a Reagan-era high-ranking Republican.

Yeah, I'm soooo disabused.Poor conservatives. They...

2007-02-26T19:24:00.001-08:00

Yeah, I'm soooo disabused.

Poor conservatives. They run the country into hell, get us mired in a war and then they bitch when people poke fun at their idiocy.

As Colbert has said, "Reality has a well known liberal bias" and it seems to be more and more true.

Gotta be a hoax. Note the blogroll containing Vio...

2007-02-26T19:24:00.000-08:00

Gotta be a hoax. Note the blogroll containing Violent Acres, the Mother Teresa of cyberspace.

How would those vandalizing CP feel if it were Wik...

2007-02-26T18:23:00.000-08:00

How would those vandalizing CP feel if it were Wikipedia being vandalized? Should we have expected anything other than implicitly supporting or even explicitly supporting vandalism from those who've posted on this (BoingBoing, JonSwift, Wonkette, etc.)?

Why are "liberals" so quick to defend WP? Can their implicit or explicit claim that WP is unbiased be trusted?

In case anyone thought those simply mocking CP had any class and the ability to analyze issues in depth before, hopefully this incident will have disabused them of that notion.

andrew sullivan is about a week late, as he is wit...

2007-02-26T16:44:00.000-08:00

andrew sullivan is about a week late, as he is with most things.

I think this says it all:Search resultsFrom Conser...

2007-02-26T13:21:00.000-08:00

I think this says it all:

Search results
From Conservapedia
You searched for sex

Jump to: navigation, search
There is no page titled "sex". You can create this page.

Showing below 0 results starting with #1.

No page title matches
No page text matches

It's definitely been vandalized all to hell. But m...

2007-02-26T13:04:00.000-08:00

It's definitely been vandalized all to hell. But most of the vandalism is of a subtle Colbertian sort. Outright vandalism just gets removed, so a lot of people have been adding hilarious pseudo-Conservative entries. There was a thread on the Something Awful forums about doing exactly this.

Although there are lots of funny original entries ...

2007-02-26T12:12:00.000-08:00

Although there are lots of funny original entries there, you should know that everybody and their mother has been vandalizing the Conservapedia for a little while now.

The joke entries tend to use better English than the true ones.