Tonight, instead of playing around with the front page and the news items at Conservapedia, I clicked their "random page" link. The first click brought me to their entry for The Thrawn Trilogy - a series of Star Wars novels. This particular entry was entirely plagiarized from this Star Wars wiki, with one minor exception - they left out three words.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I know, I know, I really should stop going to Conservapedia, but it's got that train wreck thing going. Every time I go back, I think I'm not going to find something worse than the things I've already turned up. And every time I'm wrong. But I might just be right tonight.
Today, I found the "…
Following an idea that occurred to me while being interviewed for an article on the Conservapedia, I tried replacing the inadequate page on the ACLU with the comprehensive Wikipedia entry. Before I had a chance to create an entry for Christianity by the same means, my account was blocked. Alas,…
Tonight, we've got a special Conservapedia Quiz for you. This will test your ability to correctly identify the wingnut wackaloon nonsense given a range of choices. The quiz consists of one question, the answer to which may be found at the Conservapedia entry for Natural Selection.
According to…
At least, I hope so. The "conservapedia" is supposed to be an alternative to Wikipedia that removes the biases—although one would think the creators would be clever enough to realize that even the name announces that Conservapedia is planning to openly embrace a particular political bias.…
Not ever revising wikipedia in any way, is the revision history supposed to show something? Do we have to compare both versions to find the three words, or are they supposed to be blatantly obvious? I have looked but can't see what I'm supposed to see. Any help?
Actually, looking at it more, there are more than three words missing, all in the "double meaning" section of the book titles.
Thrawn trilogy would be so much better on silver screen than the I-III that Lucas wrote.
Badger3k:
If you click here, you'll see how the Star Wars Wiki page looked when the Conservapedia article was 'written':
http://starwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Thrawn_Trilogy&oldid=2128682
Here is that section from that revision of the Star Wars wiki:
Here is the section from Conservapedia:
So, you see, all that's happened is that Conservapedia haven't replicated further edits on SW wiki since the article was first copied.
It seems they left out the 'cover gallery' section, the 'external links' and the picture on the right, swapped the positions of the 'editions' and 'overview' sections, and concluded that was enough for it to be their own article. I'm actually struggling to spot the three words seemingly left out - anyone spot em?
Hey, this could be a great new game - spot the differences in Conservapedia's plagiarised articles.
"the new republic"
They also left out "or Thrawn's Empire in general.", so we're up to 8 words left out. Is there a point, other than lazy copying without attribution? We know the Conservapedia people are poor hacks with limited skill sets. Overall, this is more pathetic than funny.
Presumably the humor stems from the fact that "the new republic" is a reasonably well known source of opinion writing that is generally antithetical to the positions held by the proprietors of the conservapaedia, and may have been edited by similar means and motivations that lead to that track star being referred to as "Tyson Homosexual" recently...
This is just a guess...