A RECENT round of web surfing raised an internet dilemma: how do you tell the crackpots from the hoaxers?
The web is generously sprinkled with sites offering explanations for life, the universe and everything that make Douglas Adamsâs â42â seem quite rational in comparison. If youâre a bit rushed, you can find a nice sampling in one place at . One story that caught our eye here is headlined âDid Bush crime family kill the Kennedys?â You donât have to be a card-carrying Republican to wonder how seriously this should be taken.
Advertisement
Itâs a bit harder to tell with websites like , a sort of Wikipedia written by and for neoconservatives. Its founder Andrew Schlafly has said âItâs impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutralâ, an attitude that is evident in its articles. For example, until very recently Kim Jong Il was identified on Conservapedia as âthe dictator of North Korea and leader of the Democratic Party of North Koreaâ, with a link to Conservapediaâs entry on the Democratic Party of the US. Wikipedia, on the other hand, identifies Kim as head of the Workersâ Party of Korea.
As might be expected, creationists have their say in Conservapedia. A typical entry says that all modern kangaroos âare the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noahâs Arkâ. That word âbaraminâ is a giveaway. It is creationist-speak for what scientists call species, but without the science â see Wikipedia again for a full, scathing explanation.
âBen Craven has a packet of pills with the instruction âSwallow whole with a glass full of waterâ. Craven, who thinks this would be very difficult, says: âShouldnât that be âglassfulâ?ââ
Conservapedia has no entry for evolution as such, only for âtheory of evolutionâ because creationists insist thatâs all evolution is. Yet, curiously, in recent days parts of Conservapedia have begun, well, evolving. Like Wikipedia, Conservapedia is a communal online project written and edited by volunteers who donât always see eye to eye. Lately a few volunteers who know a bit of science have pitched in, and articles such as âdinosaurâ began to get more factual â at least until the creationist editors returned.
As on Wikipedia, discussions of changes can grow heated. One particularly hot debate is whether dinosaurs have survived to the modern day. Browsing through this discussion, we spotted a familiar name. âDr. Richard Paleyâ sneers that another contributorâs use of âBritishismsâ makes the contributor look like âa Wikipedia agitatorâ. Nasty stuff â but hold on. Paley has written an account of a âCreation Science Fairâ at , which is a notorious hoax site satirising Christian fundamentalists.
Poor Conservapedia. On the one hand, scientifically literate volunteers are trying to undermine its crackpot creationism by inserting real science, and on the other hand, hoaxers like the pseudonymous Paley are successfully making Conservapedia sound even sillier than it already is.
Are jesters behind most of the other weird stuff we love on the net? How can we be sure Niall Kilkenny really believes the Earth doesnât move, as he writes on ? How can we tell the real crackpots from the hoaxers?
While you ponder this question, you may like to join us in lamenting the fact that the wonderful picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur has vanished from Conservapedia â and then celebrate the fact that it has been preserved at .
Do take a look.
THE latest issue of the magazine that is confusingly and pretentiously entitled fus:on, produced by UK newspaper The Independent, contains an article on the Large Hadron Collider, which goes into operation smashing particles later this year. Its headline takes the form of a quote at the top of the page saying: âA new particle accelerator is able to recreate the moment before the big bang, says Tara Shears.â
Keith Moseley, who alerted us to this, says he is somewhat doubtful that Shears, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Liverpool, actually said this, given that it implies the LHC can show us what existed before the beginning of time. We donât think she said it either.
IN HIS local bookshop, Peter Wagner noticed a book entitled All The Tunes Youâve Ever Wanted To Play. Alongside was another book entitled More of All the Tunes Youâve Ever Wanted to Play. If the title of the first book is correct, Wagner wonders, then what is the need for the second?
FINALLY, Colin Norman questions the use of the word âwildâ in the wording on a pot of Tescoâs yogurt: âWild Blueberry Yoghurt. West Country yoghurt blended with Channel Island cream. Wild blueberries from selected Canadian fruit farms.â
