19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 212:
Line 212: − Steech, December 10, 2009....................................................... Line 226:
Line 225: − + Line 247:
Line 246: + + + + + + + +
Colbert Report Viewers (view source)
Revision as of 18:56, December 11, 2009
, 18:56, December 11, 2009→Open letter to Conservapedia
==Open letter to Conservapedia==
==Open letter to Conservapedia==
I've known about Conservapedia for months. I've been fascinated with it since my initial introduction (when the special project to reform Jesus's "groovy liberal" image was anounced on a news site).
I've known about Conservapedia for months. I've been fascinated with it since my initial introduction (when the special project to reform Jesus's "groovy liberal" image was anounced on a news site).
My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen. They are not evil men and women. They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale. If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent. Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.
My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen. They are not evil men and women. They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale. If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent. Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.
Respectfully, Steech, December 10, 2009..............................................
Respectfully, Steech, December 10, 2009.
:''"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion."'' Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:''"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion."'' Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::(As an aside, I took your "Quantifying Openmindedness" article self test and satisfied your basic criteria. According to your "example questions and topics," I am not a polar ideological enemy of yours. It would seem we merely respectfully disagree.)
::(As an aside, I took your "Quantifying Openmindedness" article self test and satisfied your basic criteria. According to your "example questions and topics," I am not a polar ideological enemy of yours. It would seem we merely respectfully disagree.)
::To other commenters, let me be more clear on the subject of "'pedias" as academic resources. No encyclopedia article will constitute research by any discriminating instructor's measure. Maybe in elementary or junior high school. But by the time a student reaches high school or college, the encyclopedia is effectively disqualified as a citation in a research paper.
::"'Pedias" have made basic reference immediate and increased the efficiency of writers in an unprecedented way. Need to know the name of an Andy Griffith Show cast member or the name of the movie in which Don Knotts played a cartoon fish? Dial it up electronically with the help of a "'pedia."
::Conversely, have to write a term paper about Alexander Hamilton? Don't consult Conservapedia, because it contradicts itself. Despite citing Joseph Ellis's account of the 1804 "interview" (duel) at Weehawken, NJ, Conservapedia misrepresents Ellis's narrative. Similar contradictions are found in other citations I am personally familiar with, like Ron Chernow's biography. This is not an indictment of Conservapedia exclusively; Wikipedia suffers the same problem. The old school World Book and Funk and Wagnel's avoid such inconsistency only by being abbreviated to oblivion and going out of date instantaneously upon printing.
::My advice to the kids: Education (regardless of whether it is a conservative or liberal one) is still conducted primarily in the theaters of the juried manuscript and laboratory.
::Steech, December 11, 2009.
::Steech, December 11, 2009.