How much of the Conservapedia is hoax content?
One blogger considers poor content in the Conservapedia, and wonders: how many entries are hoaxes?
Think about this as part of the long history of hoaxes and alternate reality game antecedents. For example, the amazing Leo Taxil Freemason hoax, whereby hoaxed content was not only accepted as real at the time, but continued over years to be treated as such, even after the truth was revealed. All intermixed with sincere content.
The comment thread on that blog post reflects this problem, with different opinions and authorities weighing in.
(thanks, Jesse Walker)
Oh Dr. Alexander, you've done it again. What a fun and provocative post. I'll enjoy chasing this stuff down.
Posted by: Brian | September 07, 2007 at 19:20
Hey thanks for linking to Web Urbanist! Glad you enjoyed the post! Added you as a favorite on Technorati. So Conservapedia is a crock ... they all but accused Wikipedia of being a party to murder. Check this out: http://allsux.com/2007/06/29/conservapedia-your-number-one-source-for-blatant-hypocrisy-and-flagrant-right-wing-bs/
Posted by: Urbanist | September 08, 2007 at 00:26
Conservapedia is no worse than wikipedia in terms of bias and agenda.
The 2 wikis I trust at all are wikiality and wikitruth.
However, it is nice to know I can use wikipedia for a free filehost!
Posted by: peter naegele | September 08, 2007 at 07:56