I would imagine that by now most Dartmouth students have some experience using Wikipedia. Even some of my professors have used it on occasion. However, almost no one I know has heard of Conservapedia -- the conservative Wikipedia -- righteously committed to debunking the liberal fallacies promoted by its more well-known and highly regarded cousin.
Conservapedia represents a common conservative reaction to objectionable stories in the media -- or in this case, in an encyclopedia -- and an attempt to reject the facts presented in these sources as part of an assumed liberal conspiracy. We hear this all the time as part of accusations that major media outlets only report the bad news out of Iraq and suppress stories of all the good our troops are doing there.
In the days before the Internet -- that glorious communications tool invented by Al Gore allowing people to come together to share pornography and complain about movies -- a conservative encyclopedia such as this would have circulated harmlessly amongst nut-job bible study groups in Georgia (or wherever). The information age, however, allows pages like Conservapedia to disseminate all manner of nonsense and gobbledygook to the unwitting masses, all the while posing as a legitimate reference works.
The irony of a page like Conservapedia is that while it shamelessly acknowledges its own quite salient bias, it nevertheless presents this bias as irrefutable fact. The entries that comprise this "encyclopedia" contain all the tried and true hallmarks of American conservatism, from down-home Alabama racism to wacko New World Creationism. But don't take my word for it, here's an example straight from the elephant's mouth: "Democrats (Liberals) want big government, socialism, countries-without-borders, negotiating with dictators, giving up in Iraq, homosexual rights, diversity and people who oppose the death penalty except when the person being executed is in the womb."
Your Honor, I rest my case.
Conservapedia facilitates willful denial amongst its readers and editors, who cover their eyes and ears and scream "La la la, I can't hear you" at reality. This is how an eight year-old behaves when he's told that the tooth fairy doesn't exist (apologies to whoever is still under that impression; hearing this must be difficult).
The problem with a webpage like Conservapedia is that it approaches knowledge with the viewpoint that only the facts that coincide with a particular political, religious or ideological viewpoint are relevant or trustworthy. This is an attitude out of the middle ages. Instead of encouraging readers to seek knowledge -- as an encyclopedia should -- Conservapedia allows people to wrap themselves ever tighter in a cocoon of ignorance whenever a news story surfaces that contradicts their fantasy about how the world should operate.
America is a free county; citizens are free to entertain all the fundamentalist Christian illusions that they want. This is not license, however, to pass off these delusions as if they were legitimate, scientific fact and then claim persecution when your beliefs are rightly dismissed to the province of "Elvis lives" rumors. If a history professor taught that Columbus discovered America in 1856, the College would "persecute" him out of a job. Why does someone who claims -- without a shred of evidence -- that the universe was created 6,000 years ago deserve any more respect?
I want to make it clear that I am in no way disputing Conservapedia's right to exist. Freedom of speech protects idiocy, too. What I do dispute, however, is the notion that there can be two sets of facts in this world -- one liberal and one conservative -- and that those that don't conform to your worldview can be conveniently discarded. There's a very real difference between looking at a set of facts through a conservative lens and rearranging or removing facts because they don't conform to your worldview.
I'm terribly sorry if you want to believe that the world is 6,000 years old or that "coalition" forces are winning the war in Iraq, but your beliefs do not make these things true. Wishing you were in Cabo doesn't buy a plane ticket. That the New York Times reports stories that you find difficult to read does not suggest a liberal conspiracy, merely the truth. When adults come upon something that contradicts a prior assumption, they responsibly engage their brains.
It's high time for American conservatives to grow up.
