Conservapedia: slow minds but fast fingers

With the advent of this hilarious new effort by right-wingers to keep facts at bay while giving unapologetically biased “articles” a veneer of legitmacy, I figured I’d do my friends at the American Decency Association more props and provide them an entry.
Well, I thought I was fair enough, but my original entry (screen shot) lasted all of four minutes in its native form before some alert editor named “MountainDew” hacked it down to a stub and took out all of the useful parts. If you click on the “history” tab for the page, you can see his claim that my entry was intended as a “strawman.”


I love it when people throw around terms they don’t understand, something I assume is required of Conservapedia watchdogs. There’s a clear difference between bringing nettlesome facts to light or offering a defensible review and flat-out exaggerating, and nothing I wrote about the ADA was counter to the group’s own positions. None of it was complimentary and I can certainly see why it was unwelcome, but that’s not the point. (The link to the Swimsuit Edition was perhaps uncalled for.)
If Conservapedia is embarrassed by the existence or doings of a given conservative organization, attempting to sweep the truth about it under the rug won’t work; as instinctive as such behavior is to these clowns, as long as Conservapedia remains an anyone-can-edit entity, it cannot survive in accordance with its own aims.
I’m actually pleased that this thing, destined though it probably is for failure, exists, because there’s a small but non-negligible chance that it will draw some of the beChristed away from the real Wikipedia and thus divert them from unfairly monkeying around with its science pages, as they are of course compelled by imaginary voices to do.
For the curious, the text of my original entry:


The American Decency Assocation is a conservative religious group based in Fremont, Michigan. The ADA’s chief focus is lobbying against what it perceives as moral evils in mass media programming, commercial venues such as malls, and advertising, particularly those evils characterized by sexual or sexually suggestive content.
Owing to its unabashedly extremist stances, some of the the organization’s efforts and statements appear self-parodic, with the various complaints posted on its Web site including those against the retailer Victoria’s Secret and the ABC dark comedy “Desperate Housewives.”
Statement of Purpose
According to the group’s Web site:

  • The mission of the American Decency Association is to educate the general public on matters of decency; to initiate, promote, encourage and coordinate activity designed to safeguard and advance public morality consistent with biblical Christianity. And most importantly, as Christians to love Jesus Christ and to do His will – to “Pursue holiness without which no man shall see the Lord.” [Hebrews 12:14]

In other words, the ADA’s aim is the broad-brush censorship of retailers’ and private citizens’ protected First Amendment rights. It can be easily and sensibly argued that to censor some forms of pornography in the name of the Bible is hypocritical, since scripture includes various detailed accounts of unbridled sexual activity, including rape, incest, and other activities which today would classify as sex crimes.
Views on sex
The ADA operates under a heavy burden of denial, preferring to believe against all reason that sexual curiosity and urges are not a normal part of healthy human social, physical, and psychological development, most notably in the teenage years. It has escaped the group’s attention that the Biblical figure Jesus Christ did not, in fact, implicitly or explicitly condemn sexual behavior in any guise.
Colloquially, the ADA’s spokespersons, to be charitable, are “prudes,” and probably meet the criteria for being sexually repressed. The group holds that masturbation, homosexuality, premarital sex, sexual imagery, homosexuality, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, “Grey’s Anatomy” (the TV show, not the esteemed medical reference), and homosexuality are evils to be swept under the rug where they cannot be obliterated by dint of bellyaching.
External links

Advertisements
  1. #1 by John on February 22, 2007 - 2:00 am

    I think yours was better. I changed it back. This is going to be tremendous fun.

  2. #2 by John on February 22, 2007 - 2:00 am

    I think yours was better. I changed it back. This is going to be tremendous fun.

  3. #3 by mg on February 22, 2007 - 2:08 am

    Someone should give the URL to Kerwin and Highboy to really get the stupidity ball rolling.

  4. #4 by tacitus on February 22, 2007 - 3:40 am

    Well, the vandalism is in full swing. There is one funny one:

    The Law of Mass Conversation
    Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form and engage in witty banter.[1]

    The typo in the title was not part of the vandalism!
    And even one of the regular posters is already getting pissed off by Schaffley’s attitude:

    Inquiry, is this going to be a conservative encyclopedia or an encyclopedia of Andrew Schlafly’s personal opinions. This user’s edits while possibly opinionated were sourced and violated no obvious part of the Conservapedia commandments. JoshuaZ

    http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Redield
    Finally, a strange one. The Economics discussion page seems to be being used by Schaffley’s students in order to ask him about their homework assignments!
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Economics
    This is beyond bizarre.

  5. #5 by Alex on February 22, 2007 - 5:55 am

    “MountainDew” – how appropriate for a trollopedia. Reckon there’s another editor called “Cheeto”?

  6. #6 by Boo on February 22, 2007 - 6:33 am

    OMG, someone HAS to do an entry for Overwhelmingevidence! Pretend to be laudatory, and put in good sized quotes of all the dumbest posts. That would be GREAT!

  7. #7 by Dave Munger on February 22, 2007 - 9:27 am

    I can only imagine what might happen to Conservapedia once Steven Colbert hears wind of it.

  8. #8 by Kevin Beck on February 22, 2007 - 11:16 am

    This one hit the “net at 11:12 a.m. Eastern time.
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Fundie
    I give it at least an odds-on chance of flying under the radar until at least this afternoon. Those people have to be pretty busy.
    Fundie
    “Fundie” is a slang term, often derogatory or defamatory, used to refer to adherents to the Christian religion who believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God, no exceptions. Short for “fundamentalist,” it is one of many terms coined and propagated by liberals, communists, atheists, and other puppets of Satan in an effort to counter God’s will in the areas of evolutionary theory, murder by abortion or euthanasia, the rise of feminism, and uncontrolled sexual gratification via the homosexual agenda and premarital intercourse.
    Along with the similar terms “fundagelical,” “Christopath,” “Baptarded,” and the longstanding epithet “Jesus freak,” it carries no impact with those whose faith is strong and whose inspired sense of mission to carry the intent of the Lord Jesus Christ into all matters secular is unwavering.

  9. #9 by Jim on February 22, 2007 - 12:24 pm

    I wonder if this “Mountain Dew” is the same Mountain Dew who spouted conservative gems over on letsrun.com?

  10. #10 by VJB on March 26, 2007 - 7:34 pm

    In the entry on ‘fundie’, my favorite, ‘God botherer’ was omitted. If God actually exists, and for some ineffable reason actually was listening to those claiming He hears and talks back to them, I would think there might be many more greasy charred spots in church pews than are currently reported.

  11. #11 by Icewedge on March 29, 2007 - 11:07 pm

    Hello fellow haters of Conservapedia! My friends and I are taking perhaps a more crude approach to vandalism than the poster but I think that most of the comments we slip into random articles are either true or atleast funny. To bypass there IP adress blocker use Proxy.org they have a list of over 6k proxys.
    ~Icewedge

  12. #12 by Dan Coleman on May 1, 2007 - 9:45 pm

    Icewedge,
    What is going on in regards to Wikipedia at this time. I am glad to hear you are sticking it to Conservapedia!

%d bloggers like this: