My Vanity Fair Piece on Conservapedia

If you're looking for an amusing distraction this morning, you might be interested in a little piece I wrote for Vanity Fair on Conservapedia and the wackiness to be found therein.

Now, you're probably thinking to yourself, "I already know all about the general douchebaggery that goes on at Conservapedia. Like every liberal with an internet connection, I went over there a couple of years back and read the article on evolution and how it was invented by Hitler or some such, and I even checked out the early version of the page on Nineteen Eighty-Four, the one that explained that the ending 'has something to do with rats.' Surely, I have nothing to learn from your little article. I am the Alpha and the Omega."

Well, perhaps you're right, although I find your boastfulness a little off-putting. But, let me ask you this - did you ever check out the article discussion pages?

The discussion pages at Conservapedia are, after all, where the really good stuff goes down. Here's a sample:

Over at the talk page for Conservapedia's article on the pen-and-paper role-playing game Dungeons and Dragons, for instance, several armchair demonologists are disappointed with the article's "shockingly neutral point of view" regarding D&D in general and the game's positive depiction of magic in particular. Another contributor defends the hobby, countering that the game does not actually promote such things as witchcraft, but the fundamentalists aren't buying. "I'm sorry, but I've heard too many accounts of demonic attacks stemming from Dungeons and Dragons to take claims of it being innocent seriously," writes one, uh, skeptical contributor.

I'll just let that sink in for a moment. Okay, that's enough. Here's another for the road:

Elsewhere, on a special "debate page" entitled Why haven't intelligent design creationists published a single scientific article? , [Conservapedia founder Andrew] Schlafly took issue with a contributor's assertion that the leaders of the intelligent design movement had thus far failed to spell out their "theory" in a peer-reviewed journal, explaining that "evolutionists are censors and do everything they can to suppress other viewpoints and research." He then added, without a trace of irony, that "your account will be blocked if you persist in posting falsehoods here."

Tags: Andrew Schlafly, conservapedia, demonology, Evolution, intelligent design (all tags)

Comments

2 Comments

heh. we have a bit...

of experience with righties on wikipedia. its actually out of control that wiki allows this. but isn't it funny that conservatives are so perturbed by the um - regular internets - that they need to recreate 'truth' that is more partisan?

by canadian gal 2009-04-23 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: heh. we have a bit...

heh.  nice graphic.

by fogiv 2009-04-23 10:32AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads