Quite a few of the others here at Scienceblogs have already taken a few minutes to poke fun at the new radical right attempt at creating an encyclopedia – Conservapedia. (See, for example, here, here, here, here, and here for just a few.) I sort of feel bad about joining in, in a way – the site is so pathetic that it’s almost more sad than funny – but the key word there is “almost.” Conservapedia is worthless as an intellectual resource, but it’s a fantastic repository of accidental humor. There’s enough there that if I ever find myself at a loss for a source of stupidity to blog about, I know where to go.
Before I get into my first look at the humor in the page, there is a serious reason to be (mildly) concerned about Conservapedia. It is representative of a philosophy that seems to be common among a wide range of right-wingers in the United States today: if reality doesn’t match your ideology, rewrite reality and go from there. This would be sad and funny, were it not for the tragic fact that this group of nutcases still has an extensive amount of political clout.
Now, on with the accidental humour show.
One of the things that Conservapedia is very upset about is Wikipedia’s failure to give Christianity credit for the Renaissance. They are so upset about this particular bit of pervasive and pernicious anti-Christian bias that they complain about it not once, but twice – on the main page and in their list of “examples of bias” found in Wikipedia. Strangely enough, though, the Conservapedia entry for “The Renaissance” – wait for it – doesn’t give Christianity credit, and lists humanism as the “primary philosophy of the Renaissance.” (If the page is edited to change that, you’ll still be able to see it by looking at the history tab on the top of the page.)
I guess the liberal bias is so contagious that even they’ve caught a touch of it.