The Conservapedia “Masterpiece of the week”. Strangely enough, painted by Maximilien Luce, a French painter, that was active with anarchist groups in Paris in the 1890s.

Warning: Old news ahead! You’ve been warned.

I won’t pretend that I know a whole lot about American politics, but what I have learned is that certain right-wing movements seem to be constantly afraid of the influence of left-wing politics in the public media. Today I realised (thanks Giovanni) that some people in fact are so afraid, that they have created their own encyclopaedia, called “Conservapedia“. Now, good conservatives and like minded can read about ‘the truth’ as told by… other conservatives. This is almost the equivalent of using the Encyclopædia Dramatica for serious reference.
Now, Wikipedia is not perfect, that I admit, but it is darn close to, and by keeping out of the debate there, this branch of conservatives won’t stand a chance of participating and sharing their beliefs together with the rest of us. That leaves a gap to be filled. On the other hand, this goes well with the ‘them versus us’ and ‘politics through imposed fear’-policies that the current U.S. government has been utilising the past few years, and which media such as Fox News also heftily has been inspired by. What will be the next? A separate internet protocol, where only conservative web sites are to be placed and found? How about a “MassiPedia”? I will declare that the Earth is flat!

One of Conservapedia’s commandments states that “Everything you post must be true and verifiable.” As opposed to… Wikipedia, as you can read further down the page (and on their separate ‘them vs. us’-page):

These guidelines are kept simple in order to avoid the arbitrary and biased enforcement that is rampant on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, one of the commandments also states that

When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). “BCE” and “CE” are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis.

A biblical reference in an otherwise unbiased list of guidelines. Hmm… I wonder who gets to decide what is “true and verifiable”. The Bible? God?
We get more answers in the guidelines:

We should not allow any and all citations to newspaper stories. Journalistic opinions are not authorities, and journalists are not authorities on scientific issues. It is better to cite the scientific article directly.

And further reading on Wikipedia reveals that

“Conservapedia’s article on the kangaroo states that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah’s Ark. Schlafly [Conservapedia founder] had defended the statement as presenting a valid alternative to evolution.”

True and verifiable? Unbiased? Hmmmm…

Come on! Get into the game! Difference in opinions and discussions are the core of humanity. A printed encyclopaedia is by definition biased whether it comes from China, Denmark or the U.S. But Wikipedia is a hotchpotch of opinions and can never, ever become 100% reliable, because the truthfulness of the entries there depends on the eyes that see and the hands that write. But by allowing debate on entries and issues – debates from all corners of the Earth makes this an indispensable tool, because you get to see the world as it is – diverse, chaotic and not black and white, as some people tend to believe.

On this day...

... in 2004: Ever played Tetris?