Oy. I'm not a fan of wikipedia. There are some clear advantages to it. It's fast. It's easy to get information. But I have a problem with the open contribution policy. I think it's too vulnerable to be manipulated by the folks who care most about an issue, rather than the folks who know the most. It's the classic problem on the internet. Arguments are not won by people who are right, they are won by people who are shrill.
Apparently I'm not alone in my concerns about wikipedia. The folks at conservapedia think so too. They've decided to create an alternative encyclopedia:
Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.What?!? So rather than try to edit wikipedia for perceived bias, they are creating their own system, and only allowing folks that are biased to contribute? And who are the mastermind contributing editors to this exercise in self-delusion?
Conservapedia began in November 2006, as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students meeting in New Jersey.Perfect. Not just regular children. Homeschooled children. It won't be long before conservapedia is a conservative satire site. Yow, you can't make this stuff up.