A lot of the blogosphere is talking about Conservapedia, a new alternative to Wikipedia that takes as its rationale for existence the presumption that Wikipedia is hopelessly biased in a left-wing and un-Christian way. (Cue “the facts have a liberal bias” wisecracks.)
It is oh-so-easy to mock. The whole project is ridiculous for attempting to promote one controversial belief system in, er, a wiki. That anyone can edit. Yes, anyone. Which gave rise to the following info on the page about dinosaurs:
Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland, where one of the best curry restaurants in the area can be found (beware the chicken Madras). People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. This information, along with a hazy picture of a black shadow, was released as a joint venture by the Inverness Tourism and Sheep-shearing Quality Control Board along with the Xinjiang Department of Tourism and Bad English Signage’s dinosaur-like monster reported sightings. So far the initiative appears to have been unsuccessful as not many Scots appear to have found their way to Xinjian, nor have many Chinese been spotted in the Inverness area.
Due to claims of dinosaur and human coexistence, that page was always going to be a target for outsiders. I didn’t find my way there because I was looking for laffs, however. My brush with Conservapedia began from wondering what it had to say about the sometimes-controversial game Dungeons & Dragons, and the dinosaur link was the second on the list of search results. (Conservapedia’s D&D entry is quite good, FWIW.)
I started thinking that perhaps, despite its many flaws, once we’re done making fun of the Southern Baptists, we outsiders should consider using Conservapedia as a communications tool? Instead of using it for mockery, we could take it seriously, embrace it, and try to embed within it ideas of multiculturalism, gender equality, and other liberal causes? If conservatives are going to use Conservapedia, surely we should try and get some good information in there?
Looking at the discussion page for dinosaurs soured me on that notion. Check this out:
Why is the word “evolved” in inverted commas in the second sentence?
–Horace 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)
Note Horace’s use above of the Britishism “inverted commas” instead of the proper American “quotation marks”. This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. Dr. Richard Paley 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)
I’ve really got nothing to add to that. Sorry, Conservapedia. You are a joke to me, and I hereby renounce any attempts to find a different way of engaging with you. It’s for the best. (The Pope is the antichrist. Conservapedia says it so it must be true! Sorry, conservative Catholics, Conservapedia isn’t *for* you.)
“and try to embed within it ideas of multiculturalism, gender equality, and other liberal causes?”
I think that their solid “No British Spelling” rule, with inverted commas or quotation marks is a fairly good case that the organisers aren’t interested in multiculturalism.
But I agree that the Dungeons & Dragons entry was reasonable and balanced, which implies that there’s some hope for them.
I suspect that how reasonable the articles are will depend on specific authors, worrying about D and D is probably pretty much passe amongst non-roleplaying conservative Christians, whereas evolution is still a hot topic.
Hmm… I sense a google bombing…