« Bumper? Sticker? I Hardly Etc. | Main | An Inconvenient Lack Of Jokes »
March 02, 2007
Mr. Wizard's World
Ah, yes. Perfect. I love when Conservative-based thinkers try to delve into science. They've got such a great track record in that regard. God created heaven and earth. The world is flat. Photosynthesis occurs when angels eat salads for dinner. Earthquakes are God's revenge for Mankind sticking its penis inside another Mankind. The Square Root of Clinton is 666. Etc.
I'll leave the "30 Years Ago You Would Have Argued that Global Cooling was Man's Fault" argument for someone more qualified to dispute. I'd hate to come off half-baked and ignorant like Stantis after reading Wikipedia for 5 minutes.
Then again, I don't want to stifle scientific research. I don't want to jerry-rig studies to cherry-pick facts to make a 'slam-dunk' case for a War on Science.
Comments
Get with the times, CJo - guys like Stantis don't use Wikipedia, they use Conservapedia. And no, that's not a joke. They really do have a Conservative version of Wikipedia. And yes, it's as funny as you'd think it would be.
Posted by: The Furnace at March 2, 2007 11:27 AM
Stantis, your strip is so stupid it's unbelievable. Maybe that's because you read Conservapedia, which, thanks to Furnace, I discovered and was shocked. I offer an excerpt from their page on "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia":
1) Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia is Christian-friendly and exposes the CE deception.
2) The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give enough credit to Christianity.
3) Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[1] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[2] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.
4) Wikipedia's entry on abortion reads like a brochure for the abortion industry. Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.[3] Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.[4].
*SHUDDER*
And that's only their first four examples of 30! It goes on to accuse Wikipedia of being anti-capitalistic, anti-American, anti-creationist, anti-archconservative, gossipy, and pretty much biased against anything and everything. If you want to see the rest of this pretty unfair criticism of Wikipedia that only a conservative would write, go to conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
R.I.P. Dio
Posted by: Where the Hell is Dio? at March 2, 2007 09:47 PM
