At yesterday’s party my liberal pal Mike pointed out Wonkette and a story there concerning the Conservative version of Wikipedia.at Wonkette that I promised to link to.
Back in my hiwired days I had a love hate relationship with Wikipedia in particular and Wiki formats in general. I think Glenn Reynolds put it best:
And there’s more on Wikipedia’s problems here. I find it a decent place for casual reference when the subjects aren’t politically charged, but much less useful when they are.
Wikipedia has been accused of liberal bias (among other things) so naturally a competitor; Conservapedia arose still in the wiki format but with different rules. Answering speech with more speech is a good idea but a wiki format is a wiki format and you have to watch out on politically charged content. Well you can’t get more politically charged than this:
For example, say your home-schooled-in-Christ kid needs to do a report on which states would benefit from Dem senators who, tragically, “were unable to complete their terms and were replaced by qualified Republicans by their Republican governors.” Where to go? That homosexual devil box “Wikipedia” surely would be of no assistance, to Patriots!
The screen shot on Wonkette’s page shows the actual entry that was actually posted. Wonkette rightly denounces it and I join them. It didn’t however stay up for long:
This “Article” Was The Work Of An Internet Parodist/Vandal
Conservapedia in no way sanctioned it, and cannot, because of the wiki format, completely stop the work of political terrorists, who are intent upon and dedicated to mocking our conservative, Christian-friendly encyclopedia.
Thank you.
I think the word “terrorist” is a bit much here but the point is made. The real point is any format where a vested interest can edit the stuff shouldn’t be used for anything that might be controversial. (Do you really think that Cuba or China doesn’t monitor their Wikipedia related entries?) You want Dr. Who stuff its fine, you want facts go to Encyclopedia Britannica online.