So that's the purpose of Conservapædia…

How does one get a comment onto Conservepaedophilia?

I tried to correct one their items which had a minor, but blatant fault, and there doesn't appeaer to be an "edit" function, unlike Wiki ....

The mista=ke was to falsley claim that mass-production was an American invention, in case you were wondering.
The first documented case was designed by M. I. Brunel (IKB's father) for making "blocks" (that is pulleys/sheaves for sailing ships) for the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic wars.
A little earlier than Samuel Colt, methinks.

I suspect that this is less to do with actual usage, and more a function of the author's obsession with his articles' rankings. The author being, of course, Ken deMyer, the fellow who was over here under the pseudonym Peter Moore a while back.

Bwa Ha Ha! This is gonna be fun to mention at the dinner table tomrrow!

COnservatives fear the gay. This has already been demonstrated, I believe.

Strange stuff indeed. But ,like watching a train wreck,I have to ask :wtf is Gay Bowel Syndrome and do only conservatives get it?

Priceless! And I just checked the site: over 43,000 more hits on "Homosexuality" since that screenshot was taken.

Religions obsession with sexuality is bewildering. Just look at the state of the Anglican Church now - it's utterly preoccupied with this issue.

Hmmmm. Repress much?

@Eljay #5: Gay Bowel Syndrome does actually exist, a characteristic pattern of intestinal infections associated with promiscuous unprotected anal sex. I'm not going to dignify that Conservapedia page with a look, but they will no doubt have morphed it into some sort of dread rectal plague that smites anyone who so much as ponders on a shapely buttock.

Agreed, that is PRICELESS.

Funniest.

Thing.

Ever.

Actually it's probably worth pointing out that a lot of those hits are probably non-fundies going there to laugh at the 'conservative' view on the gays.

As someone pointed out in the comments at Crooked Timber, the talk page for Richard Dawkins is fascinating: http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Richard_Dawkins
I'm not sure if I dare read the article itself. I may catch idiot from it.

Conservapedia doth protest too much, methinks.

With all the conservative jawing on the internet about "I SAW IT ON TEH INTARWEBS!!!!1" being sufficient proof for anything, can we now finally say that the people at conservapedia are hiding something?

Oh, please! This is just another Liberal distortion. No such obsession with homosexuality exists. For example: Just off the list, at #12 and #15, are "Ted Haggard photo swap" and "Mark Foley email address".

Hah! Your anal ysis is clearly just a theory.

I did a little research, and it seems likely that the top ten are the result of sabotage. I know that some of the people over at RationalWiki (does being an anti-anti- site make you a pro site?) enjoy pranking Conservapedia, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone made a spider to auto view all pages related to homosexuality. This would explain why really obscure things like gay bowel syndrome get more views than the theory of evolution and atheism. I hate conservapedia, but I don't want them being able to say we all fell for this because we wanted to believe it.

Wouldn't they include Bears then, AttemptingReason? One would think they would. ;-)

What AttemptingReason said. See my blog post:

Conservapedia, Homosexuality, and pranked statistics

Conservapedia reasoning: The more people that look at it, the more truthful it becomes. Also, whatever Andy says, goes.

I read pharyngula but don't comment much. I have a question, isn't there a theory that schizophrenia (or some forms of it) is related to strongly repressed bisexuality? If true I think one could start developing a general theory of wingnuttia. The recent spate of high profile wingnuts (for lack of a better word) having their fetishes exposed seems to back that up somewhat.

Seth, I read your post. All you seem to have is your incredulity. Surely that was shattered long ago?

I resent this atheist website attempting to denigrate the popularity of Conservapedia. The fact is that Homosexuality is a very popular subject among conservatives because we want people to understand how sick homosexuals are, how far they have been led astray, and how (contrary to the assertions of liberals) they can be cured.

This has nothing to do with hating homosexuals. My own brother is gay, after all. But the fact is that homosexuality is a sin, and it makes one prone to all sorts of diseases. All we do is document the truth that the liberally biased Wikipedia will not allow us to present.

All we do is document the truth that the liberally biased Wikipedia will not allow us to present.

Well, facts do have a well-known liberal bias...

Anyway, I had always thought that the purpose of conservapaedia was so we could mock the wingnuts for using the un-American spelling.

Hey Andrew,

Don't you have some truth to go censor somewhere?

My own brother is gay, after all.

Yeah, that makes him much less of a pervert than you. You make Oedipus look like an amateur. Rather than bursting into sobs here, why don't you crawl back to your reptilian mother and her heat rock for some succor?

Oh please Andrew, sin is just another nonexistant bit of nonsense you fundies use to justify hatred and discrimination. What business is it of yours what goes on in someone's bedroom? Are you so inadequate that you have to judge the activity of others? Can you please cite the causation of the "gay disease" exactly, and how can this be cured? Have you conducted randomized trials with your treatments, or do you just go straight for the burning at the stake? And let's drop this bullshit about spreading disease, as if only gay men spread disease; hate to inform you, but women engage in anal sex as well, yet I don't hear much about their being cured.

Go thump a bible, retard.

Wow, Assfly, you crawled all the way out of the toxic waste of your fundie dumping ground just for that? All you brought was "I don't like you, nyah nyah nyah," surely there was more to your drivel than what you submitted. Maybe you meant to tell us how kangaroos really originated in the Middle East, how moon dust proves that the moon is only 6010 years old, or some other half-assed scientific sounding smegma, but hit "Post" too soon. Please, do come back, we'd love to hear more.

I resent this atheist website attempting to denigrate the popularity of Conservapedia.

Resent? Resent? Sounds like your entitlement synapse is working overtime, you whiny little twat.

I linked to the Liberal page for Conservapedia , but my comment is being held for Conservapedia (I forgot PZ's filters pick up any conservapedia links) and noticed that the image on it violates Conservapedia's First Commandment: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

The site really is a conservative Christian site, right down to being unable to follow its own rules.

Well done, Andrew, you twat.

Hmm. Conservapædia's definition of Santorum doesn't seem to be in line with the commonly used definition. That's odd, considering the conservative obsession with teh buttsehks.

Dustin: Reptilian? Whoa, that even made me cringe. Yet I admit I'd rather cuddle up to my brother's gecko. *shrug*

Brownian: I love how Cоnservapеdiа bellyaches about liberal bais while openly admitting - nay, proudly trumpeting - that it is comprised of articles "written from a conservative viewpoint." No hypocrisy there, nope nope. I looked at the Liberal page on Cоnservapеdiа. No bias there, nope nope.

Meanwhile, Mr. Schlafly claims, "All we do is document the truth that the liberally biased Wikipedia will not allow us to present." LMAO.

I offer, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting, a similarly scientific graphical representation of the Conservative brain.

I resent this atheist website attempting to denigrate the popularity of Conservapedia. The fact is that Homosexuality is a very popular subject among conservatives because we want people to understand how sick homosexuals are, how far they have been led astray, and how (contrary to the assertions of liberals) they can be cured.

This has nothing to do with hating homosexuals. My own brother is gay, after all. But the fact is that homosexuality is a sin, and it makes one prone to all sorts of diseases. All we do is document the truth that the liberally biased Wikipedia will not allow us to present.

This is all the politeness you deserve: GO FUCK YOURSELF.

Stop imposing your moronic views on the rest of the world and go see a psychiatrist, you miserable excuse for a human being.

All we do is document the truth that the liberally biased Wikipedia will not allow us to present.

Let's all worship Andrew, purveyor of the truth.

Fucking ASSHOLE!

The one of the big baby conservatives biggest boogey men is teh gays... they use it when ever they can to rally their base, sad thing is, it works well for them in close races.

They're pathetic.

LOL

everyone now.... click.... click... click...

Reptilian? Whoa, that even made me cringe.

Well, to be fair, Phyllis Shlafly is kind of lizard-brained; all hate and no thought.

And Assfly couldn't even get a job via Wingnut Welfare. His skink of a mother had to bail him out.

Thank you, Andrew, for being an apologist for hate crimes. Michael Medved, apologist for slavery, would like an invitation to your place for Thanksgiving.

Claims of Hate Crimes
It is claimed that about 1100 hate crimes against homosexuals or their property occurred in 2004.[276] But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of drugs or alcohol. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial.[277][278] 74% of hate crimes are either crimes against property (e.g., theft, vandalism or graffiti) or a vague "intimidation".[279]

The degree of accuracy of hate crime statistics is debatable. For example, national statistics in the United States regarding homosexuals committing hate crimes against heterosexuals may be underreported and non-hate crimes against homosexuals are classified as hate crimes when they should not be (see: hate crimes for further details).

I do not believe that was the real and for true Andrew Schlafly.

1.) He would not have mentioned his brother John's sexuality. Conservapedia's own article on John Schlafly doesn't mention it and attempts to included have been reverted and those editors inserting it were blocked indefinitely.

2.) He only talks to high-powered poobahs and above, none of this associating with the likes of us, the hoi poli AKA "riff-raff".

C.) Everything was spelled correctly.

I assumed Andrew Schlafly's word by word party line statement was a satire. Googling I see he is a contributing editor of Conservapedia and the son of eighties gargoyle Phylis Schlafly. Too bad not all offspring of these desicated gargoyles can't be as gutsy as Ronald Reagan Jr., the only Reagan offspring I could respect.

Some of those pages are pretty much blank, and were created in the last month. They are there and a program is just punching up the stats.

Classic though.

Hello Andrew,

Just in case you ever come back here to check the response to your sad little defence, I just want you to know this. Most of us were making fun of your site long before PZ posted anything about your site. You should know by now that there are many who dislike your site and they are not just atheists.

But the fact is that homosexuality is a sin, and it makes one prone to all sorts of diseases.

Oh, I agree. And bungee jumping, that's a horrible sin. You can break your neck with that, so God must hate bungee jumpers! Oh, and don't get me started on skydivers!

Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it is wrong. For it to be wrong in and of itself, the act must inherently and intentionally deprive another of life, limb, or their fundamental rights. Sex, gay or straight, is only incidentally dangerous, and so long as it is entered consensually I see no reason for it to be wrong. "God doesn't like it" doesn't count as a reason.

Boing boing has a good discusson on this. It seems that there is some discussion about click bots. Rational Wiki has this to say:

I am one of the administrators at http://www.rationalwiki.com. A few of us at the site have in the past bumped page views at CP for the hell of it. So yes we can do it, yes we have done it.......now did we do this? I can't say...it was not an organized effort and no one has stepped forward to claim responsibility for it. Perhaps Occum's razor would dictate the answer.

Another commenter says:

Bots, pranks, whatever. None of it explains the extent to which this article has been lovingly authored and edited. It contains 287 carefully compiled footnotes, is roughly 60 pages long, and stretches to about 18,000 words

I tend to agree with the last comment.

Andrew, I sincerely hope you read this:

The most disturbing thing about Conservapedia is it has become all that it claims to stand against. You claim to be the sole purveyers of truth, and yet you censor anything, even indisputable facts, that you dislike. How come it fails to mention that your brother is gay on his Conservapedia page? It's a fact that you've admitted to, so why censor it?

Your website has far more in common with Stalinist Soviet ideology than it does with American values. You purge users and information that you find destructive to Conservapedia's goals, despite how easily verifiable they are. You exactly parallel the censorship of the Soviet Union against anybody who dare say something against "the state".

You wipe out swaths of user accounts for "vandalism", and your pet goon "TK" blocks entire IP ranges, blacking out whole cities because of the actions of a few people. Hell, he's proud of what he does, lording his silly "banhammer" title over any who wish to listen to him.

Finally, every single thing you create on Conservapedia is charged with politics. No matter how innocuous the subject, you have to either associate it with Liberals if it's a negative subject, or associate it with Conservatives if it's a positive one. And your supposed disdain for partisan facts is hilarious. You could never hope to criticize Wikipedia's supposed "liberal bias" when you proudly trumpet your conservative bias.

In closing, your creations completely contradict your aims. You claim to eradicate bias by amplifying it ten-fold, or by combatting censorship by eliminating anybody who presents a dissenting view, and you create a deceptively titled learning environment to push your singular view of the world. The saddest part of all of this is that you will always find some way to justify your actions, no matter how ridiculous or contrary to reality they are. You are trapped in your own narrow view of the world, forever failing to realize that yours is not the only opinion that matters.

"Just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it is wrong."

You forget who you're talking about here. This is the man that seems convinced that gay sex is the only way to catch diseases. That's why the Hep vaccines shouldn't be given to schoolchildren because it's "not contagious at school". What a load! So apparently roughhousing kids horsing around during recess never EVER shed a drop of blood, which teachers NEVER bandage and clean. His excuse is the increased chance of multiple sclerosis (Note: CP's own article on the vaccine says that most studies done showed no correllation between MS and the vaccine).

Also no mention that the vaccine has led to a drastic reduction in liver cancer instances in all ages.

His wife (if he has condemned some poor female to such a terrible fate) must be one unsatisfied woman.

Andrew the demon:

I resent this atheist website attempting to denigrate the popularity of Conservapedia.

Hi Andrew. How are things in hell these days? Falwell and Kennedy must have lowered the average morality there a bit.

Don't you have a bar date with Lucifer or a family planning clinic to bomb or something?

One of the more overlooked arguments for god is the existence of pure evil beings like Falwell, Kennedy, and Andrew Schlafey. People who have dedicated their lives to lies and hatred.

AdamNelson:

Ramen to what you say.

Sadly, it's probably too lucid for him to understand.

ok, that's ACTUALLY very similar to their real usage statistics. the primary difference being that "gay bowel syndrome" went up. probably out of curiosity of people reading this and similar posts.

is this rigged, or what? it'd be somewhat easy for people to pull this sorta thing off as a prank. i would imagine we'd get a more balanced representation of conservative nuttery -- creationism pages, etc.

By far the funniest thing I've seen today. "Gay Bowel Syndrome" indeed.

Fair play, Conservapedia, thou hast bested me comedically yet again...

Stay with me for a bit here.

Quoting whatever the fuck he is, "truth that the biased wikipedia dares not disclose", and I made a great effort to misquote and present the speaker in a false light. Even so, the gist of the argument stands.
What's more, the assertion that wikipedia is unwilling (?) to post the kinds of things that conservapeodieaistus posts seems to provide a simple, yet unbelievably complex, answer.

Find a way to effectively make every post on the conservvatiapeodia (they can't spell it, why should I try to) instantly linkable to wikipedia, or the reverse, as the case may be, and shoot down their idiocy as it is posted. The trick is to completely contain your adversary in yourself, so Wikipedia should embrace the dickopedia as its own, and overwhelm it by consuming it.

Imagine if every post at ihavealittledickopedia was instantly available for editing, or even just documenting, by those with reading comprehension skills. They could instantly and continuously be hoisted on truth's petard.

Plus it would be really funny.

Autumn, they've already covered that base. One of their "Commandments" says you can't link to WP. Of course, as I noted above, they're not above breaking a commandment or two.

I suspect that they're more comfortable with lying than with linking to reality, though.

Quite a nice little intellectual cocoon they've built.

"Quite a nice little intellectual cocoon they've built."

Indeed so. The mere fact that they have to protect all their worthwhile articles from the hordes of "vandals" that flock to their site suggests that the vast majority of Internet surfers completely disagree with their principles.

Some have accused Wikipedia of democratizing information. In part, I agree with that. However, Conservapedia has "despotized" information, taking the feelings of the overwhelmingly wing-nut minority and trumpeting their ideas as if they are the only ones worthwhile.

Adam Nelson! Where'ya been?

Indeed so. The mere fact that they have to protect all their worthwhile articles from the hordes of "vandals" that flock to their site suggests that the vast majority of Internet surfers completely disagree with their principles.

The problem is, they can't protect against page-views. After KenDeMyer (aka Conservative, aka Newton), began trumpeting Conservapedia's awesome page-view statistics, a certain one among our number at RW decided that it would be fun to massively bump their pages. Epic lulz ensued - not that I'm supporting them, that is ;).

The thing is, though, is that it's hiding the fact, on Alexa and similar, that Conservapedia's nearly dead. It's now just the sysops and a handful of others, ~90% of whom are actually RW users. It's got a comparable number of articles to wikipedia at the same time, but that's just due to the massive copy-and-paste-athon from the United States Naval Department (I kid you not), and its userbase has collapsed.

Brownian, from #27:

"Resent? Resent? Sounds like your entitlement synapse is working overtime, you whiny little twat."

Near the bottom of that Conservacrapaeia page is a list of "liberal organizations." Along with the usual right wing liberal bogeymen, like Greenpeace and MoveOn, is listed the *Westboro Baptist Church."

Are these guys to the right of even Fred Phelps?

Wow. Just...wow.

I bet that's a joke that the Conservapædia editors have so far overlooked. Probably they don't even know what the Westboro Baptist Church is.

(Not that that belongs to a well-rounded education... urgh.)

Hiya Interpreted! Busy with school is all... 20-page Romantic History papers really get to you. And don't even get me started on Post-Tonal Theory...!

"Probably they don't even know what the Westboro Baptist Church is."

They know all that they need to know about any one subject, and it's that it's bad. They also know that Liberals are bad. Therefore, the WBC is Liberal. Barely-human CP user Karajou once mentioned that there are no shades of gray, that things are good or bad (this was in response to a concerned user commenting on the lack of degrees to anything on CP). This is more telling than it first appears to be. Essentially, they live in a Saturday morning cartoon-like world where the simple, virtuous underdog is threatened by an evil entity who does bad things purely because he is evil. They parallel this into th real world, seeing people who are different from them as "evil", and once something's evil, it requires no further justification and can be dealt with sans conscience or rational thought.

This is easy for them to swallow, because Christianity is rife with such trains of thought. God is good, Satan is bad. What more do you need to know? Bush summed it up perfectly when he said "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." To them, Americans are good, foreigners (or Americans who don't think the way they do) are bad.

Wells@ #7

If "gay bowel syndrome" exists, so does straight vaginal syndrome: yeast infections, clamidia, herpes etc.. And don't forget syphilis and gonorrhea, which affects both sexes.

BTW, given that straight people also engage in anal sex (and will be more likely to, under "abstinence only" propaganda), it is highly unlikely that only gay people would be susceptible to the problems that you mention. It is referred to as "gay" merely to demonize gay people.

After reading 'Gay Bowel Syndrome,' I realize two things:

1) People are incredibly stupid.

2) People are also easily lead when you throw the basest of pseudointellectual jargon at them. This conservative 'thought' is just basically soaking in your own ignorance. It's so laughably pathetic that I wonder if Andy Kaufman is really George W. Bush and this is all an elaborate joke to utterly humiliate anybody who has even put anything into right-wing politics. Nobody in their right mind can be this incredibly stupid.

Seriously, this whole thing has to be a joke.

"Seriously, this whole thing has to be a joke."

I thought so too, but honestly, they are just dumb enough to be credible. Take a look at Schlafly's new "Atheistic style" article on CP. Apparently he doesn't believe in black holes or gravitons (he got the last bit from an old Jack Chick comic).

I bet that's a joke that the Conservapædia editors have so far overlooked. Probably they don't even know what the Westboro Baptist Church is.

(Not that that belongs to a well-rounded education... urgh.)