Conservapedia:Parthian shot/Wuhao1911

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims, authoritarianism, and deceit.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the Best of RationalWiki.

So It's Come to This[edit]

Confession time.

No, I'm not a Chinese grad student with an academic interest in the Bible. In truth, I'm but an American teacher with an academic interest in China. I could say more, but it doesn't matter. By this point, you've already made plenty of assumptions about me. Besides, my identity is not nearly as important as my intentions.

Originally, I was here to humiliate you - nothing more. The whole lot of you were just so confident that I thought I might have a bit of fun taking you down a notch. If my efforts kept a homeschooling family or two from wasting time your project, it was a bonus.

However, as I worked, I discovered something - there is nothing I can do to the site that you haven't done to it already. Conservapedia is truly one of the saddest things I've ever seen. I think the first time I genuinely pitied you was when I sat down and looked through your ridiculously large article on homosexuality. It's a high-profile article, but look at it. It's terrible. I'm not even talking about the terrible sources or the homophobia - that was to be expected. The pathetic part is how ugly and poorly laid out it is. You have shown absolutely no effort to improve that article beyond the most superficial elements. Par for the course for Conservapedia, as it turns out.

You want another example? Look at Andy's ridiculous exams. The results of those tests make your students look really dim, but I don't think that's the case. Your standards are so astoundingly low that they have no reason to do any better. Why aim for the stars when a shot at the ground will suffice?

I've watched your attack dogs run off potentially productive editors on the pettiest of rationales. I've seen you insert false information into your own articles in the service of your politics. I've watched favored editors violate the stated rules of Conservapedia without repercussion. I lost count of the rules I violated, but as long as I sucked up to the right people, no one cared.

Those are all just peripheral concerns, though. The real problem - the mortal flaw that dooms this project to the realm of mockery - is Andy Schlafly's hubris. Andy, if you'd set out to create a wiki devoted to conservative philosophy and thought, you might - let me emphasize, might - have succeeded. But no, you decided you had to replace Wikipedia entirely. You never had the numbers, the talent or the will to swing that. That's precisely how I managed to cause so much damage.

That brings me to the purpose of this missive. I've spent most of my time here creating and editing articles on Chinese culture and history. Some of these articles are entirely accurate. Some have a few dodgy facts and figures, but can be easily fixed. And some of them are entirely fabricated. As I see it, there are two ways you can deal with my contributions. One, you can sort through them and figure out what's fact and what's fiction. Of course, none of you have any particular expertise in Chinese culture, so you'll have to step outside your comfort zone and do some learning. Maybe, in the process of cleaning up my mess, you'll decide to go beyond and improve yourself. As you are so fond of saying, the truth shall set you free.

Two, you could wipe out everything, throwing out the quality material with the trash. I can guess which one you'll do, but maybe one of you will surprise me.

With that, I shall say goodbye. If you learn nothing else, remember this: Paranoia is not a defense.

~A blind squirrel can still find a nut, but a sighted nut can't find a damn thing~

P.S. I do feel a little bad about all the trouble I've caused you, so I left you a present. I went through some of your more high-profile articles and removed all the inaccurate, misleading and trivial material - the "conservative claptrap," if you will. I also went ahead and stripped out some irrelevant and frivolous images. This should make it easier for the world at large to take you seriously. You're welcome.