I am Jack's sense of indignation
To keep me distracted I've been browsing Conservapedia, the much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American.
The introduction kills me[1].
Conservapedia has over 3,800 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics ... Already Conservapedia has become one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet
Apparently, if you are one 9th the size of The Marvel Database, you can consider yourself one of the largest free encyclopedias.
The articles are bloody awful[2], in both content and writing. Most of them are simple one-liners, often taken from books by Dr. Jay L. Wile. Take a look at the one about Richard the Lionheart:
Richard Plantagenet
Lived September 8, 1157 - April 6, 1199, was King of England from 1189 to 1199, some consider him a great and very popular king despite the fact that he did not acomplish[sic] much for his people.
To realize just how useful this article is, you must know that it is not reachable by a search on Richard the Lionheart or King Richard. It is the first hit when you search on Richard I, but that is only because the article contains the letter I and the other three Richard there are articles about (Dawkins, Nixon and Stockton) follows.
Once in a while you will encounter an article on more than two lines. Take the one about Homeschooling. It contains a list of High-achieving Christians who were educated at home. Because, you know, this is a non-biased encyclopedia, so the focus should be on Christians. And what do you know, among the list of famous world-changing people as Bret Harte, Charles Fletcher Lummis, Charles Pickney[sic] III you find Jesus Christ. I think I've already surpassed this paragraph's allocated amount of sarcasm, so I'll leave it there.
It should be considered very trustworthy, apparently, even though E2 has more source references than Conservapedia. Fuck, a random LJ entry about how somebody's day was is more likely to contain an external reference.
Edit: This line from the article about Descartes is just gold: This (...) got him into ferocious arguments with Hobbes, but then Hobbes loved a good argument and was usually wrong.
[1]I've also been re-reading Catcher in the Rye
[2]Like traffic accidents.
The introduction kills me[1].
Conservapedia has over 3,800 educational, clean and concise entries on historical, scientific, legal, and economic topics ... Already Conservapedia has become one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet
Apparently, if you are one 9th the size of The Marvel Database, you can consider yourself one of the largest free encyclopedias.
The articles are bloody awful[2], in both content and writing. Most of them are simple one-liners, often taken from books by Dr. Jay L. Wile. Take a look at the one about Richard the Lionheart:
Richard Plantagenet
Lived September 8, 1157 - April 6, 1199, was King of England from 1189 to 1199, some consider him a great and very popular king despite the fact that he did not acomplish[sic] much for his people.
To realize just how useful this article is, you must know that it is not reachable by a search on Richard the Lionheart or King Richard. It is the first hit when you search on Richard I, but that is only because the article contains the letter I and the other three Richard there are articles about (Dawkins, Nixon and Stockton) follows.
Once in a while you will encounter an article on more than two lines. Take the one about Homeschooling. It contains a list of High-achieving Christians who were educated at home. Because, you know, this is a non-biased encyclopedia, so the focus should be on Christians. And what do you know, among the list of famous world-changing people as Bret Harte, Charles Fletcher Lummis, Charles Pickney[sic] III you find Jesus Christ. I think I've already surpassed this paragraph's allocated amount of sarcasm, so I'll leave it there.
It should be considered very trustworthy, apparently, even though E2 has more source references than Conservapedia. Fuck, a random LJ entry about how somebody's day was is more likely to contain an external reference.
Edit: This line from the article about Descartes is just gold: This (...) got him into ferocious arguments with Hobbes, but then Hobbes loved a good argument and was usually wrong.
[1]I've also been re-reading Catcher in the Rye
[2]Like traffic accidents.