Oh. My. Gosh.

I've written before about the laughable propaganda engine called 'Conservapedia.'

Conservapedia is the American right-wing's 'alternative' to Wikipedia, which they claim: "shows a systematic liberal bias." Therefore, New Jersey lawyer and history teacher Andrew Schlafly, started his own 'trustworthy encyclopedia' which presents the (ahem...) facts from a 'Conservative perspective.'

[You mean a completely retarded one? - Editorial Bear]

Which translates as it being a place where Conservatives can go to find Wikipedia-like articles telling them all the make-believe they want to hear: Rubbish like how evolution isn't true, that the mighty vegetarian Tyrannosaurus Rex hung out with Noah and his pals and, of course, all sorts of rubbish about the 'enemies' of Conservatism, like our pal Obama.

For old time's sake, I visited Conservapedia to see what they've got written about Barack Obama. Check it out - it's hysterical and terrifying all at the same time:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Obama

For the sake of your sanity, though, I'll present some of the best bits. Remember, pundits who visit Conservapedia consider these to be 'facts.'

This picture from Conservapedia shows Obama not placing his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegience. This clearly indicates that he's a radical, white-hating militant Muslim who eats the tender flesh of aborted babies.

Doctors from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have observed that Obama uses techniques of mind control in his speeches and campaign symbols.

Yes, apparently we're all under the hypnotic control of Barack Obama.

"Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen." Obama's "birth certificate, from the state of Hawaii," has been "verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts."

Like with every other citation in the article, it's impossible to find links to the 'experts' - which is probably as a result of them not existing.

If elected, Obama would likely become the first Muslim President, and could use the Koran to be sworn into office.

I can't even think of anything funny to write about that claim. It's just a pathetic lie.

Obama has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the result of affirmative action.

Remember, according to true Conservatives, no African American ever achieved anything through their own grit, determination or ability. Especially not the richest woman in the world, Oprah Winfrey.

Obama and his wife, reared a Baptist, have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Wait, didn't they claim he was a Muslim earlier? You'd think they could get their (ahem...) facts straight in the same article.

Oh, about the Trinity United Church of Christ. Aside from the antics of firebrand preacher Jeremiah Wright, the proof of Obama's Godless, heathen ways is proved because: "this denomination was the first in America to ordain blacks as ministers."

Fortunately, it's not all Conservative insanity. In the 'talk' section of the article, some people have objected to this fact-free, cobbled-together of badly-written, disgusting propaganda.

One person writers: "The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff."

To which Andrew Schlafly, the owner of Conservapedia, responded with an instant ban on that user, smugly adding: "That's your first -- and only -- contribution here."

Another user pointed out that many of the article's claims had no citations, as sites like Wikipedia insist on.

One reader complained: "Citations... in the Obama article are NOT true sources. When following down to the footnote, I couldn't get to a site and was exposed, instead, to anecdotal evidence based on the observation of the person who wrote this article."

Andrew Schlafly's response to this allegation? Pointing out that it's not Conservapedia's policy "to cite only sources that can be proven to be "factually" true."

So straight from the horse's (ass's) mouth, his 'trustworthy encyclopedia' doesn't trust it's truthiness to those pesky, liberally biased things you and I would call 'facts.'

Over the past few months, I have been simply astonished at some of the things people have come to believe about Barack Obama. I often wondered what contagious mental illness they must have contracted.... turned out it's a little some called 'Bollockus Conservapediaus.'

Remember, folks: Andrew Schlafly is a teacher and an advocate of homeschooling. So when the next generation of American kids can quote Deuteronomy by heart, but have forgotton every medical and scientific advance more technical than the asprin, go and knock on that asshole's door.

Further on Conservapedia

In the spirit of impartiality, I registered with Conservapedia to try and correct a small mistake they had in their section on militant athiest Richard Dawkins.

It was regarding the 1986 Huxley Memorial Debate, in which Creationists and Evolutionists debated the hypothosis:

"That the Doctrine of Creation is more valid than the Theory of Evolution"

Conservapedia had this to say on the topic:

"In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate."

I wanted to correct that paragraph because it's completely incorrect. In actual fact, the records of Oxford University list 198 votes for the noes and 15 for the ayes - meaning only one in ten of those at the debate supported the creationists at the conclusion of the debate.

Upon entering that information, however, my edit was swiftly deleted and my account blocked.

I wonder how Conservapedia creator Andrew Schlafly justifies the slogan 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia' with an attitude like that?

_____apedia.

It the Internet has one major flaw, it's that people tend to accept everything they read on it as fact. This is why websites like Snopes.com popped up, to debunk an awful lot of myths and hoaxes (never respond to an email round-robin without checking the first.)

Wikipedia is a particularly thorny problem when it comes to Internet credibility, since Wiki entries are actually contributed by users themselves - meaning people like you and I can go to a specific Wikipedia entry and change it as we see fit (just click on the 'Edit' button at the top of the page.)

As Stephen Colbert put it: "On Wikipedia, any user can change any entry, and if enough users agree with them, it becomes true. Together we can create a reality that we all agree on — the reality we just agreed on."

The good thing about Wikipedia, however, is that it's moderated by a dedicated and impartial team who remove malicious editing and require everything posted there to be backed up by some form of credible evidence (you'll spot the words 'citation needed' in some entries, signifying that the statement is not supported by evidence.)

This poses a problem for some people, who would love to have their opinions and beliefs endorsed by instant 'wikiality' - yet aren't willing to compromise by relying on something so erroneous as 'facts' and 'evidence' to back these beliefs up.

Hence the creation of 'Conservapedia.'

Truly one of the most cynical inventions in the Internet's history, Conservapedia is a 'Conservative Wikipedia.' It's like Wikipedia, except everything on it is written with a 'conservative' slant. It still demands all statements are backed up by facts - just not the sort of facts us regular folks would give credibility to.

For example, on discussing creationism, the Christian magazine 'Journal of Creation' is listed as a 'peer-reviewed scientific journal.' Which it's not. Not by any stretch of the imagination!

Conservapedia is one thing and one thing only. A place for conservatives to post their baseless theories onto the Internet and have them receive the vicarious credibility of being listed on a Google search engine. This in turn means they can link to Conservapedia as 'evidence' to support their ridiculous fantasies on blogs and in discussion forums.