LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY skyshark)

(Warning: This probably contains liberal bias.)

Remember the shining Conservapedia, counter to liberal biases and English spellings everywhere? I've been standing a very long way back and poking it with a stick. This has resulted in a disgorgement of groupthink, a small minority seeking control over knowledge, preemptive censorship, and historical revisionism. (Imagine poking a sea cucumber.)


1. We now have a Conservapedia Panel.

"Who authorized your changing of the Theory of evolution page to the developmental version here?" (CPWebmaster)

"The people, as signified on the Talk Page, other than Conservative. As written, it is a consensus document. Please also look at the "vote" section. . . see if you consider it biased or dangerous in any way." (-AmesG)

"Changes like this are supposed to be decided by the Conservapedia Panel, not votes." (CPWebmaster) (bolding mine)

"Where is this Conservapedia Panel and what happened to the whole idea of the wiki?" (ColinRtalk)

Good question! Much to my delight, there is a Conservapedia article on the Conservapedia Panel. They are, it seems, prepared to prevent you from making any controversial statements you want to make to Conservapedia articles. But not censor you.

It's an unknown number of anonymous people from the original 58 high-school students. It's been asked, as of yesterday, how to challenge any ruling they make. No answer has come.

Want the Wikipedia article on the Wikipedia Panel? Here you go.


2. About that whole bias thing? It's a good thing they claimed only they don't have liberal bias. Currently on the main page is a snippy little message under "Items of Interest:"*

"Our best and our brightest are supposedly the product of the most costly educational system in the world. You won't think so after you read this racist vandalism posted from an internet address at one of our elite, liberal colleges, Brown University."

Conservapedia either can't wait for the martyr's crown, or maybe just believes flapping their dirty laundry is the way to help everyone as they educate themselves in an atmosphere free of liberal bias. There's a link embedded to their article on Brown University. In that, the only two entries in "Recent Events:"

A. college students throw parties (they mention this party thrown by the Queer Alliance, and I think include it either because BU was embarassed by bad publicity, or because the students were gay.)

B. Someone from a BU computer posted something bad on Conservapedia. No--seriously, it's in the article that an anonymous single poster wrote graffiti on the internet. I await the news on who TPd whose home.*


3. Besides the startling item 1, this one may well be the most relevant to dark_christian You want to see historical revisionism? That section has it in spades. Please see the entire section on Adolf Hitler, in which I laughed because I could not cry.

Did you know that with only three more sources, we can declare the Nazi Party a homosexual cult? Witness the Roehm and Hitler editing discussion.

The winner? TerryK's comment under the discussion for the edits, reasoning on why we should not go ahead and say the whole thing was the fault of gay people sneaking into the regime. (Hint: the answer is not in concepts like "because that's not the truth.")

"But to think the homo-erotic orientation of some German Nazi's had some broad policy implications, impacting on the Holocaust or Hitler's foreign policy, is nonsense. About as nonsensical as making that assumption about the Gays who worked for John Ashcroft when Governor of Missouri, or as Attorney General, or Ronald Reagan, or even on Billy Graham's staff. If we follow the path you are suggesting, then articles on noted religious leaders will be open to the same. I don't really think we want that, do we?" (bolding mine.)

Glory.


*Yes, I have screenshots if this is edited within the week.