nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Conservapedia:Alex Beam's column about Conservapedia (view source)
Revision as of 05:44, June 6, 2007
, 05:44, June 6, 2007Create page
In a column by Alex Beam in the Boston Globe dated 4th June, 2007 titled [http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/06/06/just_the_facts____and_theyre_always_right/ Just the facts -- and they're always right], Conservapedia and conservatives were mocked, ridiculed, and misquoted.
Apart from a general mocking tone to the column, Beam refers to Conservapedia being for "right-leaning wing nuts".
He illustrates his claim that Conservapedia provides "loopy definitions" by quoting out of context from the [[kangaroo]] article. Beam says:
{{QuoteBox|Their entry on kangaroos, for instance, says that, "like all modern animals . . . kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood."}}
By quoting this out of context, he give the impression that Conservapedia is claiming this as the truth. The actual truth, however, is that the quote is immediately preceded by "According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists...".
So Conservapedia is actually ''factually'' documenting what creationists believe, whereas Beam was claiming that Conservapedia says this.
However, the Conservapedia in question has not actually had the words "like all modern animals" for over two months prior to Beam's column being published, which makes one wonder about the veracity of his research. Has he actually looked to see what Conservapedia says, or has he done his research by reading anti-Conservapedia web-sites?
He mocks conservatives with "The yahoos aren't the only ones who hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest", but one must wonder if Beam has read what he wants to read and disregarded what was actually said.
Apart from a general mocking tone to the column, Beam refers to Conservapedia being for "right-leaning wing nuts".
He illustrates his claim that Conservapedia provides "loopy definitions" by quoting out of context from the [[kangaroo]] article. Beam says:
{{QuoteBox|Their entry on kangaroos, for instance, says that, "like all modern animals . . . kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood."}}
By quoting this out of context, he give the impression that Conservapedia is claiming this as the truth. The actual truth, however, is that the quote is immediately preceded by "According to the origins theory model used by creation scientists...".
So Conservapedia is actually ''factually'' documenting what creationists believe, whereas Beam was claiming that Conservapedia says this.
However, the Conservapedia in question has not actually had the words "like all modern animals" for over two months prior to Beam's column being published, which makes one wonder about the veracity of his research. Has he actually looked to see what Conservapedia says, or has he done his research by reading anti-Conservapedia web-sites?
He mocks conservatives with "The yahoos aren't the only ones who hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest", but one must wonder if Beam has read what he wants to read and disregarded what was actually said.