Although, to be fair, the Wikipedia article on Kangaroos does fail to
note the Aboriginal beliefs on where kangaroos come from, as well as
the idea that they floated there from Mount Ararat on a log (and also
fails to mention why the whole idea of arriving on logs is bloody
stupid).
On
I think that the 404 might be the blocks Sarah was talking about.
-James.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9 April 2011 13:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2011 12:53, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly only Liberapedia and one of the conservative sites,
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page are actually open for
editing.
But Europeans might contaminate Conservapedia with *gasp* things that
don't test your faith!
That site's a mess. Better that the world /doesn't/ see it, really. They
might start thinking conservative Christians (like myself) are all that
ignorant. And according to the article on dinosaurs, I'm
Conservapedia seeks to rewrite history, it makes Convservative Christians
look like uninformed idiots, most Christians ALREADY KNOW that man did
land on the moon, the earth isn't flat, dinosaurs did exist, the earth
CAN'T possibly be 6000 years old and that the earth revolves around the sun.
I
Not to be supporting Conservapedia (more like playing Devil's Advocate),
but isn't rewriting history different from reinterpreting history?
It's like interpreting The Bible; that is, there are different
interpretations of the entire book that span the entire one-dimensional
political spectrum.
Sorry, good point MuZemike, that's what I meant. The world would benefit
more
if the kind folks at Conservapedia tore down the site. Andrew Schlafly is
full of
bull... Colbert's interview with him is... interesting, tch, yeah Wikipedia
is biased
Dream on Schlafly!
--
-Ancient Apparition
There is a difference between hosting a site and running a site.
Jimmy's company wikia hosts a number of sites including Liberapedia -
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page None of the various
conservative sites seem to use wikia, unless that is Wikia allows
sites to use their own domain
On 9 April 2011 12:53, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly only Liberapedia and one of the conservative sites,
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page are actually open for
editing. Conservapedia http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
currently comes
Sad indeed. I am not entirely convinced Conservapedia is even maintained
by conservatives. Most of the stuff I've seen on there looks as though
it was designed to poke fun at conservatives, rather than to represent
us accurately.
I've not heard of Liberapedia; I might check it out in a bit to
On 9 April 2011 18:23, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
Sad indeed. I am not entirely convinced Conservapedia is even maintained
by conservatives. Most of the stuff I've seen on there looks as though
it was designed to poke fun at conservatives, rather than to represent
us
Sad indeed. I am not entirely convinced Conservapedia is even maintained
by conservatives. Most of the stuff I've seen on there looks as though
it was designed to poke fun at conservatives, rather than to represent
us accurately.
And Glen Beck is a Stalinist intent on discrediting resistance
12 matches
Mail list logo
