I’m having a busy day, so let’s go straight to the mailbag!
Just thought you’d find this funny…
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!
Keep up the good work,
Wow, in case you don’t feel like clicking through, here are the stats for Conservapedia’s top ten most viewed pages:
1. Main Pageâ€Ž [1,951,260] 2. Homosexualityâ€Ž [1,807,838] 3. Homosexuality and Hepatitisâ€Ž [518,397] 4. Homosexuality and Parasitesâ€Ž [453,060] 5. Gay Bowel Syndromeâ€Ž [429,850] 6. Homosexuality and Promiscuityâ€Ž [422,587] 7. Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violenceâ€Ž [374,455] 8. Homosexuality and Gonorrheaâ€Ž [332,262] 9. Homosexuality and Anal Cancerâ€Ž [294,849] 10. Homosexuality and Mental Healthâ€Ž [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.
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!
Um, what's "gay bowel syndrome"? I am afraid to go and look.
"Gay bowel syndrome" is when you have an upset stomach for longer than three days, and you see your physician and it turns out you're gay.
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.
I see they have half fixed the Cricket World Cup article.
It's still total rubbish, but vaguely plausible if you know absolutely nothing about cricket, like almost everyone in the US. But it's a Wiki so the old versions are still there, like this one for example
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).
I laughed so hard I am now looking at my screen through bits of cracker. :)
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.
Please! It's spelled "Conservapaedia." Or, if you're really fancy, "Conservapædia."
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.
Following up on the comments here, I've edited the above entry….
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.
You must log in to post a comment.