Anti-ScienceRandom Asides

Mailbag Monday!

I’m having a busy day, so let’s go straight to the mailbag!

Hello Rebecca,

Just thought you’d find this funny…

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

Look at the stats for the conservative on-line encyclopedia.

And then, when you’re done laughing, check out
their definition of evolution… Lies and logical fallacies galore!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Keep up the good work,

Benoit Méthot
Montreal, Quebec

Wow, in case you don’t feel like clicking through, here are the stats for Conservapedia’s top ten most viewed pages:

1. Main Page‎ [1,951,260] 2. Homosexuality‎ [1,807,838] 3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [518,397] 4. Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [453,060] 5. Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [429,850] 6. Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [422,587] 7. Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence‎ [374,455] 8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [332,262] 9. Homosexuality and Anal Cancer‎ [294,849] 10. Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [294,217]

I could be mistaken, but doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I believe that makes Conservapedia the GAYEST SITE ON THE WEB! I hope that in honor of this recognition, they begin displaying this award I made them. It took a lot of work and I’d like for it to be appreciated.

Unicorn

Following Benoit’s advice, I’ve yet to click the link for the evolution page because I’m not finished laughing yet. Congratulations, Conservapedia, and thanks to Benoit for the tip.

+++

I’m editing this to point out that yes, there’s a very, very, very good chance these numbers were affected by hoaxers. Before reading the comments below, it hadn’t occurred to me that people might take this a bit too seriously. So, for the record, the visitors to that ridiculously stupid web site aren’t so interested in homosexuality that they would visit those pages so frequently — no, they’re just interested enough in homosexuality to go to all that trouble to create those pages and fill them with misinformation. Hope that clears everything up. Oh, but the award stands as is!

Rebecca Watson

Rebecca leads a team of skeptical female activists at Skepchick.org. She travels around the world delivering entertaining talks on science, atheism, feminism, and skepticism. There is currently an asteroid orbiting the sun with her name on it. You can follow her every fascinating move on Twitter or on Google+.

Related Articles

11 Comments

  1. Gotta be careful with things like this. There's a very high chance those stats were fudged somehow, likely from a bot made to artificially inflate hit counts. No one's come forward to claim responsibility yet, but there are suspicions floating around.

  2. The part of the website on evolution talks about naturalism as if it is only a principle in science regarding evolution… as if there is another part of science where methodological naturalism is not used… Speaking of which, I was wondering if anyone here has seen the previews for this new Ben Stein movie called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". Here's a link to the movie's website: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

    I would like to see Rebecca's reaction to this movie if I haven't missed a past post where it was already covered. I'm so angered knowing that Ben Stein actually took part in making such a movie. Unfortunately, since most Americans are more likely to watch a movie playing alongside big blockbusters than they are to watch a NOVA program on the Dover, PA trial on PBS, I think this movie should be a major concern. Ben Stein is generally thought of as a very intelligent man and I think lots of people are going to listen to him and think that, just because he is intelligent, he must know something about science. I could go on and on about this movie and I do not seem to see much coverage of it on atheist blogs (other than Pharyngula's).

  3. I am not laughing actually since this is the horse poop that a large portion of my family believes.

    I notice that unlike Wikepedia, there are no disclaimers that the information contained in the articles "may be biased". I guess that would imply that someone would be monitoring the words within for any semblance validity.

  4. They were definitely fudged: the fudgers even 'fessed up. I got taken in too: guess some things really are too good to check. Someone needs to take away my skeptic uniform in punishment, but you can't have my skeptic underoos, I NEED THOSE!!!

    Still, a pretty funny prank, all in all.

  5. I don't think the numbers have to be fudged. I think they are affected by blog articles like this one, pointing out the foolishness of the "Conservapedia" and a lot of non-conservatives visiting the site for a good laugh.

Leave a Reply

Close