Navigation


RSS: posts / comments



Idiotopedia

Thursday, February 22nd, 2007, by Fred (, No Comments »
, , , ,

If you are a conservative, then Conservapedia should be embarrassing to you. Formed ostensibly to counteract perceived anti-Christian and anti-American bias in Wikipedia, the effort wouldn’t pass muster in a reasonably-challenging public middle school. Take, for example, the entry that came up for me when I asked for a random page:

Pilgrims

Pilgrims were people (mostly puritans) in the 1600’s that traveled to the American Colonies because of persecution in England. These settlers started the very first settlement in the American colonies, Jamestown.

It’s amazing you can get that much wrong in only two sentences. The pilgrims were mostly puritans, but they came as part of the Plymouth Company in 1620 to Massachusetts. Jamestown was established in 1607 by the Virginia Company of London, not by pilgrims. The 144 settlers did not flee Anglican persecution when traveling to Virginia. And Jamestown, while the first permanent English colony in the New World to survive, was not the first attempt. It was the 19th.

Try it for yourself - Random Conservapedia page.

Since the site’s existence hit the blogs, there have been some efforts to improve the inanity. Compare the current page on faith to what it originally said:

Faith is a uniquely Christian concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. The term lacks a precise definition. In English the word comes from the Latin word “fidere”, meaning “to trust”.

The concept of faith does not exist in other major religions. While faith is mentioned 229 in the New Testament, faith is mentioned only twice in the Old Testament (KJV). In an English translation of the Koran (Islam), the concept of submission to Allah is mentioned 11 times, but faith in Allah is only mentioned once.

The term “faith” is often misused to describe the belief systems of other religions.[1]

There are clearly problems with Wikipedia. It is generally, but clearly not always, accurate. Pages on controversial topics are often riddled with bias, leading to lockdowns to prevent edit wars. It keeps the learning curve intentionally high to prevent the unwashed masses from participating. But the Conservapedia is ridiculous.

[via Pharyngula]

Any law with “protection of children” in its title is a bad idea

Friday, February 16th, 2007, by Fred (, 1 Comment »
, , , , , ,

Preston Gralla says Ted Stevens is a buffoon. Fred Wilson says he’s an idiot. John Battelle agrees. What has them so riled up? The Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act. This bill would, among other things, require schools to install filters that “protect against access to a commercial social networking website or chat room unless used for an educational purpose with adult supervision.” So what’s a Social Networking Website? That’s up to the FTC, but the bill requires that the Commission’s rulemaking consider:

(i) is offered by a commercial entity;

(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;

(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;

(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and

(v) enables communication among users.

That’s a remarkably broad definition, which would encompass not only MySpace, but also any blog hosted on Blogger, wordpress.com, Livejournal or Typepad. It likely would cover wikis, including Wikipedia. It would cover any of the blogs that allow significant user input, like Kos or LGF.

So clearly the definition needs work. But is the law even necessary?  Schools and libraries are already required to use filters by Congressional mandate.  If the school thinks a social networking site is objectionable, it can block it. All without direction from or approval of Ted “the internet is a series of tubes” Stevens. It is always better to empower local authorities to take appropriate action than to reform society via ham-fisted Congressional action.

MySpace should, of course, be banned. Not because it is dangerous, but because it is aesthetically horrendous.