Posted by mario piperni On August 10
You literally could not make this stuff up. Conservapedia, the online encyclopedia of choice for idiots, bigots, religious fanatics and just about anyone who loves their misinformation served in tin foil packaging, has found a way to associate Einstein’s theory of relativity with the evils of liberalism.
The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world. According to Conservapedia:
If one believes in Einstein’s theory of relativity then according to the kook who penned this Conservapedia entry, they are less likely to read the Bible which of course then gives loons the right to call it a liberal plot. Not only that but they found a way to link it somehow to President Obama. Beck would be so proud.
If the mindset and level of intellect which now prevails in the conservative movement ever takes full control of the levers of power for any extended length of time, you can expect the U.S. to become a backwards, knuckle-dragging banana republic within fifty years.
Conservapedia was a conservative reaction to Wikipedia which conservatives consider to have a liberal bias. According to Conservapedia:
Below is a growing list of examples of liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The atheist Jimmy Wales was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact the atheist Jimmy Wales about any biases you find at Wikipedia. And please be sure to ask Mr. Wales why the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles contain information that you will not find at the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles.
CNET has stated:
For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. . . Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site.
Rightardia has found that some Conservapedia articles that deal with non-controversial subjects are accurate. It has used material from Conservapedia to refute posts form poorly informed conservatives. Its fun to hoist conservatives with their own petards.
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 11952
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world. According to Conservapedia:
See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson’s book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by Barack Obama. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible, a book that outsells New York Times bestsellers by a hundred-fold.
If one believes in Einstein’s theory of relativity then according to the kook who penned this Conservapedia entry, they are less likely to read the Bible which of course then gives loons the right to call it a liberal plot. Not only that but they found a way to link it somehow to President Obama. Beck would be so proud.
If the mindset and level of intellect which now prevails in the conservative movement ever takes full control of the levers of power for any extended length of time, you can expect the U.S. to become a backwards, knuckle-dragging banana republic within fifty years.
Conservapedia was a conservative reaction to Wikipedia which conservatives consider to have a liberal bias. According to Conservapedia:
Below is a growing list of examples of liberal bias, deceit, frivolous gossip, and blatant errors on Wikipedia. The atheist Jimmy Wales was a lead founder of Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact the atheist Jimmy Wales about any biases you find at Wikipedia. And please be sure to ask Mr. Wales why the Conservapedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles contain information that you will not find at the Wikipedia Richard Dawkins and atheism articles.
CNET has stated:
For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. . . Nature got back 42 usable reviews from its field of experts.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site.
They did, however, discover a series of factual
errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162
such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Netcraft rank: 11952
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://rightardia.blogspot.com
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment