Because I don’t actually give enough of a shit about either site. I was noting how ready people on the Dope are to slam conservative idiocy, but liberal idiocy often gets a pass.
Fuck it, I’m done. I made one post to this thread and now all I’m doing is helping derail it by responding to everyone who disagrees with me. You’re not going to change my mind and I’m obviously not going to change the minds of everyone who disagrees with me.
Please continue with the (deserved) pitting of conservapedia.
The Today Programme (BBC Radio 4’s influential morning news show) carried an item on Conservapedia this morning, mainly consisting of a discussion between the presenter, Schlafly and Jim Redmond from Wikipedia. You can hear it via their website.
I only listened to it while shaving in the next room - and the audio on my PC is out - but it seemed slightly unsatisfactory. The usual issue of treating something as a “debate” in the name of balance when there really isn’t any and one side is probably happy just to get the exposure. Schlafly merely trotted out his usual insane list of complaints. There seemed scope for getting him to expound at length about the evilness of British spelling. To an audience of BBC listeners.
It’s hard to change the mind of someone who isn’t listening. You have had explained to you over and over the difference between Demopedia and Conservapedia and their claims about themselves and how that may be relevant to their pitworthiness and you don’t reply to the rebuttal at all. It’s hard not to get the impression you are just not prepared to hear. You just pop back up like a weeble saying precisely what you said before as if the rebuttal you’d just been given didn’t exist.
Right. It’s not that Demopedia is any kind of sacred cow that should be immune from Pitting. It’s that the self-described aims and scope of the two sites are so different that attempting to compare them just makes you look like a conservative apologist.
Criticize Demopedia on its own merits (and demerits) all you like. But don’t try to pretend that it’s really at the same level of ignorant partisan absurdity as a self-proclaimed conservative substitute for Wikipedia whose chief accomplishment is that it treats Young-Earth Creationist claims as scientifically valid theories.
Dude, if not even you yourself can pretend that Demopedia is important or entertaining enough to merit Pitting, then why on earth are you complaining that nobody else is bothering to Pit it?
I did set out my reasons, once (in jest). It was good fun, but having brickbats thrown at you from all sides gets tiring when you’re in a tiny minority, surrounded by slavering howling hordes. Even when the slavering howling hordes are only throwing are nerf brickbats. I only just got out alive.
Both sites were designed to present different information.
Conservapedia actually pretends to be a form of encyclopedia (addressing all areas of knowledge while getting nearly all of them wrong).
Demopedia was intended to provide a repository of left-leaning opinion.
Would you claim that the Demopedia article on George W. Bush represents something other than a left-leaning view of his presidency?
On the other hand, the Conservapedia article on George W. Bush does not even contain as much information as the Demopedia article and actually has a higher percentage of editorial comment (with rather little in the way of actual facts regarding the President).
And, as previously noted, general Conservapedia has a farly lengthy article on evolution (getting a very large amount of the presentation wrong) while the political Demopedia refrains from addressing the topic.
Conservapedia is more risible because it fails in its stated purpose while Demopedia does not.
How long has (or had) Conservapedia been open to full-scale public editing, anyway? Seems to me Wiki had a long period of relative dormancy before reaching critical mass and maybe this is the same. All it needs is some publicity and honest conservatives the world (or least America) over will flock to it and fill its informational coffers with extensive, patriotic, God-fearing facts.
Bolding mine. I don’t know if it’s funnier if the writer was being serious or facetious.
Bolding mine. I’m not sure if the writer is explicitly stating that Fox is “more” American or if he’s commenting on others’ supposition using poor syntax. Either way, it’s amusing.
Conservapedia’s authors begrudge the ACLU this morsel:
before diving straight into, and I quote, Same-sex Marriage and the Gay Agenda (with which I’m sure they would like to accompany ominous thunder) and an exhaustive capsulation of the ACLU’s involvement with polygamists.
Of course, Rupert Murdoch’s an Aussie who basically bought his US citizenship as a way to get around the laws prohibiting foreigners from owning broadcast networks.
I generally view Murdoch as less qualified to be human than all but the most rabid members of the current administration, but do you have any evidence that Murdoch paid money to reduce the residency requirement or eliminate the education required for people applying to be naturalized? If he completed all the Congressionally mandated requirements for naturalization, I see no reason to say or imply that he “bought” his citizenship. His motive may have been one of which you disapprove, but I see no reason to cast aspersions on his actions without evidence.
True, but he still talks funny and Real Americans don’t. Except Southerners. And people from New Your City (chorus: New. York. City?) Except, because of the perversions wrought by Librul TV, they don’t even talk funny anymore. Who can one laugh at anymore? Except, if one were to ask my wife, Mormons? (“Mom, he’s a friend of mine and I’ll thank you for knocking off the anti-Mormon comments, 'kay?”)
