And Now We Have "Liberapedia".
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: AE Tavern
Forum Discription: Come here to introduce yourself and discuss almost anything under the sun! Or just to let your hair down...
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25312
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 17:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: And Now We Have "Liberapedia".
Posted By: Akolouthos
Subject: And Now We Have "Liberapedia".
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 19:40
So much fun was had by all making fun of the ridiculous Conservapedia. In the interests of equal time, I decided to bring to you the equally ridiculous Liberapedia. This just goes to show that ignorance is one of the few things in the world that actually transcends any particular brand of partisanship. Honestly, don't all of these people have better things to be doing with their time -- like posting on AE.  
Go ahead. Check it out and have a laugh:
http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page - http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
-Akolouthos
|
Replies:
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 22:04
 Most amusing. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 22:36
|
This is satire. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 23:11
Exactly. Liberapedia is a humourous website, Conservapedia is dead serious. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 00:11
I really, really hope you're right -- actually, I hope that both of them are satire.
 That said, check some of the discussion pages. It seems that they are in a bit of a transition.-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 05:14
|
Nice find Akolouthos, but the main page is a dead give away that this is pure satire. Just compare the comments on the two plans for the US parties in the upcoming elections.
On the other hand, conservapedia is really very serious (except for the odd page where someone who dislikes the site makes an entry which is obviously designed to discredit them). Their page on dinosaurs is something I look at from time to time when I'm in need of cheering up. The attempt at providing cave paintings as proof of human coexistence with dinosaurs shortly after the creation of the world a half dozen thousand years before Christ deserves a mix of admiration (for trying very hard) and humorous dismissal.
Still lets watch Liberapedia, she may provide us with some extremist entertainment we can all have a laugh at. Kind of like American Dad. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 06:14
|
Did'nt consevatpedia start off as a satire.
------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 06:23
I read it began when a US school teacher, disgruntled with "liberal bias" of wikipedia, started up his own wiki. Other things that annoyed him were things like a general acceptance of evolution as true and that some pages contained English in its more "English" form e.g. 'colour' rather than 'color'. He felt the need for a more American and more conservative wiki. Its presence later attracted the creation of inane pages from hostile visitors. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 07:13
|
^ Wonder if he has ever had an MRI scan?
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 08:30
|
Conservapedia was indeed a serious project initially, but it has since been taken over by trolls and it is now literally impossible to distinguish the articles that are intentionally absurd from those that are not.
Liberapedia never appears to have bothered with the pretence in the first place. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 13:05
From what I gather conservapedia is basically under martial law, they ban people for changing color to colour, or for talking too much on talk pages and too little on articles. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 20:25
The point is, not even those in charge are able to discern the "honest" articles from the parodies anymore. The quotes in your signature are excellent examples of this; are they serious or satire? It is impossible to say. Sadly, they could just as easily be either. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 21:52
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 21:55
Whether they were added seriously or as satire, the Conservapedia leadership agrees, otherwise they would have been removed. In fact, they call the atheism article the article of the year, so not only do they agree with it, they actually think it's the best they have to offer. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2008 at 22:37
|
Again, one person's heartfelt opinion is another's satire. We'll never know what they were originally. The endorsement of the Conservapedia "masterminds" means very little in this regard. The fact that they can be so easily trolled just goes to show how pathetic the whole business truly is.
I guess that's the only real certainty about the site; it's a joke whether it's intended or not. ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 01:56
|
Interesting discussion. I would advise everyone to read some of the "talk" pages on Liberapedia, and to watch it as it develops. Things do not always end as they begin, especially when their beginnings are so ill-defined to begin with. -Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 05:39
|
The Amy Winehouse article was brilliantly incisive in a highly politically incorrect sort of way. The truth is so much more appealing when not stifled by paranoid desires not to offend anyone or be the least bit improper. I look forward to more liberapedia pages of this sort of unabashed honesty. ------------- |