I have mentioned this before, but it dawned on me again, this afternoon, just how racist bigot Andrew Schlafly’s little hate blog, Conservapedia, fails as an educational resource. It’s not just Schlafly’s bizarre approach to education – one in which be believes that concise is good, too much information is bad and that reading books – or at least books full of “liberal claptrap” is a very bad thing.
It’s also not helped by the fact that CP is run by a bunch of power-mad, right wing maniacs, more interested in imposing their will upon the few remaining editors, than contributing to – or checking the quality of – information on the wiki. Then again, not one of them, from Schlafly down, has the necessary qualifications to pull it off – a glaring shortfall that Schlafly handily covers up, by insisting that “the best of the public” is better than any expert.
Case in point, to prove that they have no clue. Take senior administrator Brian Macdonald (aka Karajou), CP’s resident swabbie. This man spent literally hours building up the bird articles on Conservapedia – adding around 1,000 new articles over the course of a few weeks. It really was a herculean effort, especially given that the only other person doing any work was Ken Demyer, spitting out his inane and insane “essays.”
And yet, as with all things Conservapedia, it was fatally flawed. You see, Brian went to all that work during July and then got bored, or distracted, or needed to block editors again. What he left behind was not only utterly useless, but also indicative of Conservapedia as a whole – it looks ok on the surface, but you only need to scrape back the thinnest level to reveal the vacuous shortcomings and stupidity of the project.
As an example, I saw an article for “Princess Stephanie’s astrapia”. I clicked on it, secretly hoping it was something to do with the underwear of Monaco royalty. Sadly I found out it was a bird. A bird of paradise, apparently, from the category it’s in… and besides knowing it’s full scientific classification, I have no idea what it looks like, where it’s found, what it eats, or even for that matter, who classified it. So much for the “trustworthy” encyclopaedia. Admittedly, Wikipedia’s article isn’t much longer, but at least I can see what the bloody bird looks like and where it lives.
It sort of sums Conservapedia up, in the fact that they provide you with each and every brain-numbing step of its classification (19 levels as opposed to WP’s 7) and yet can’t even tell you what it eats. And they’re happy with this state of affairs!