Wednesday, November 21, 2007

On-Line Reading, Normal Compared to Conservative

You've got to find this interesting.

Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's an amazing experiment. Almost everyone, when they first hear the idea, expect that people will write stupid stuff on purpose and vandalize the texts, but it doesn't work that way. Instead, people who read an entry and spot a mistake tend to fix it. So the chapters get better and better. Oh, there are legendary exceptions, of course, but in general Wikipedia has gotten a lot bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica, and where it might take ten years to fix an error in Britannica, Wikipedia can do it in a couple of seconds.

From Boing Boing (motto: "A Directory of Wonderful Things"), we learn the Top Ten most viewed pages on Wikipedia:
1. Main Page [30,090,900]
2. Wiki [904,800]
3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [413,400]
4. Naruto [401,400]
5. Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock [396,000]
6. United States [330,000]
7. Wikipedia [329,400]
8. Deaths in 2007 [321,300]
9. Heroes (TV series) [307,500]
10. Transformers (film) [303,600]

Well, I can't say I've looked up, uh, any of those things, I think the terms I search for are probably in the Bottom Ten. But there's not a lot of surprises there, new and popular stuff, leaning toward the geeky end.

Conservapedia has a similar format, it's a wiki. It was invented because some people thought Wikipedia had a liberal bias. I am biting my tongue here, of course. Conservapedia describes the world from the "conservative" point of view. Woops, the tip of my tongue just fell on the floor, better find somebody to sew it back on.

Since we saw what interests the Internet world in general, leftward-leaning as they may be, of course it's interesting to see what people look for on the conservative alternative wiki. Probably stuff about smaller government, liberty, some economic policies, accountability, entrepreneurship, maybe ... guns?

Here are the Top Ten search items for Conservapedia:
1. Main Page [1,906,729]
2. Homosexuality [1,572,713]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [517,086]
4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [420,687]
5. Gay Bowel Syndrome [389,052]
6. Homosexuality and Parasites [388,123]
7. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [365,888]
8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [331,553]
9. Homosexuality and Mental Health [291,179]
10. Homosexuality and Syphilis [265,322]

What would Barry Goldwater think, to see what conservatism has become?


Blogger BlackTsunami said...

i should point out that "gay bowel syndrome does not exist. it is like saying tuberculosis is a "woman's disease."

i know anonymous will disagree, but before he/she does, I suggest that he/she take a gander at the post on my blog ( that refutes the conservapedia entry on gay bowel syndrome.

November 21, 2007 9:44 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I also recall reading that the most hits to porn sites (in general -- straight and gay) come from the Arab world.

No surprises from either of these repressed groups.

November 21, 2007 11:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The ladies of the opposition here in MoCo might want to check the internet histories on their home computers.

November 21, 2007 11:52 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Johnny Garza was complaining there's no men in the CRC -- that's because they're all home cruising the conservapedia while the ol' lady's at WCTU meetings.


November 22, 2007 12:21 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

As it turns out, the son of one of the most virulently anti-gay founders of the entire anti-gay industry is responsible for founding Conservapedia:

There’s an interesting convo going on at BoingBoing link provided. One of the commenters linked here:

“Conservapedia founder Andy Schlafly”

“touted as “a conservative encyclopedia you can trust.”

“[Andy] Schlafly, 46, one of Republican activist Phyllis Schlafly’s sons"

BlackTsunami breaks it down further, here.

Tsunami breaks down the fundamental, and multilayered flawed notion of "gay bowel syndrome," among others.

Love this part:

"Lastly, both online dictionaries mentioned by Conservapedia (particularly looks like online dictionaries in which anyone can add terms."

So technically they could be quoting themselves.

How convenient.

November 22, 2007 1:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home