I was just informed that there is a Creation Wiki; a community-built encyclopedia much like Wikipedia, but instead full of creationist garbage.
The thing about wikis is, anyone can sign up and start editing them. This is a strength and a weakness of wikis: the obvious weakness is that anyone with an agenda can vandalize (either grossly or subtly) a page, but it’s also a strength because the community tends to catch such things. However, one person with a mean streak and time on their hands can effectively ruin a wiki’s usefulness.
So I look at the Creation Wiki somewhat askance; by coming at life from the direction of creationism we already know it’s going to distort reality. Looking at the Big Bang section confirmed that suspicion of mine; it has so many errors it would take hours to correct them. The third word of the entry is a lie: they say that the Big Bang is "The main evolutionary theory on the origin of the universe." That’s just dumb; evolution has nothing to do with it at all. It’s just a buzzword they use to incite the masses. And it’s a lie because they simply made it up with no evidence. Sure, people who know evolution to be true tend to also think the same thing about the Big Bang model, but that’s because they both really are true. I suspect make people who support evolution also like chocolate chip cookies, but a causal connection might be difficult to establish.
There’s plenty more. Here’s a classic:
In the unbounded universe of the big bang there is no edge and as such no center. In a bounded universe there is an edge and there is a definite center. As it turns out, there is evidence for such a center and that the Earth is near it.
There is a quantization of galactic redshift.
There is no evidence at all for a center of the Universe. The quantization of redshifts they mention was disproven years ago; I would actually call this another lie on their part, since the disproof of the redshift quantization has been easily accessible for so long. Interestingly, the very first page result from Google for "quantization redshift" is a familiar site: BAUT. Another return is Wikipedia itself, again showing that this is a bad claim.
There were several dozen other lies mistakes in the Creation Wiki in just that entry. I am loathe to investigate further.
Funny. I’m ambivalent about editing it. I don’t have the time, but even if I did, would I do it? I must admit to being torn: I want the correct info to be out there, and I hate to leave such obvious untruths intact. But then there’s the practical me: if I change anything, a legion of brainwashed people will change it back. So why bother?
But then I wonder. If I were to make a change, and they re-edit it, they have to leave a reason why (as would I). It might be of very great interest to see what reason they would give…
Still and all, as aggravating as it is, seeing stuff like this hones my resolve to fight willful ignorance even more. I get commenters getting upset at me when I point things like this out, and even more upset that I call it lies. But the thing about being based in reality is, you call things like you see them. And the scales fell from my eyes in this matter long ago.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:36 am
It should be called Bizarrowiki.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:36 am
>Anticreation in Media
>
>The belief in Biblical creationism, and in particular that the earth is >6000-10000 years old, is ridiculed by the news, educational >programming, and in popular culture.
http://creationwiki.org/Anticreation
I think you’re fighting a lost cause if you provide input to this wiki.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:47 am
BA:
I don’t think it would be useful to critique such a huge but ephemeral medium as a “Wikiwhatever.” By their very nature they are subject to revision ad infinitum (ad naseum, in the case of this creationist crapola), although efforts are being made by the creators of Wikipedia to make the amending process more fact-checkable and therefore more reliable.
Far more worthwhile is to critique the published books, public statements and the like of the charlatans, snake oil sales folk, and the truly pig-headed who will never be shaken from their belief, and doing so in a public forum in the full light of day. I think far more folks will be reached and might be influenced by such criticism of baloney than would be by attempting to edit a site which is read mostly by people who are already fully convinced of the “truths” of the content.
While the web is a vast network, it is still out of the mainstream for most of the world. I would like to see a barrage of letters and phone calls to the networks from outraged citizens when they air the views of the frauds
who espouse any whacko idea, philosophy, religion – name it. PBS still puts on Deepak Chopra, for god’s sake!
Will. M
December 10th, 2007 at 11:49 am
I have to agree with Michael; any changes that aren’t creation-friendly will be wiped clean. You could “fix” the entire site and all your effort would be deleted, with no trace left behind.
“Comments required” is up to the whim of the people administering the wiki, by the way. Somehow I don’t think they’d be averse to deleting any edits, associated comments, etc., they didn’t like from the underlying database.
Getting into a wiki-editing contest on their turf is futile IMHO; your effort is best spent elsewhere.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Phil ~
Have you seen the video over at Sadly, No! http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8114.html ? Must be from the same site. The video would almost be funny except someone seems to believe such stupid things.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:57 am
Kinda shocking it took you so long to discover CreationWiki… I’d be surprised if any skeptical person can provide info to that site. I suspect that like Conservapedia the entire site is locked down so the unfaithful cannot correct their lies about science.
BTW… go to http://www.metapedia.org if you want to check out something really wrong (think Conservapedia is too pinko, try Metapedia!). The real problem with wiki’s isn’t that anyone can edit them, it’s that anyone can create their own “alternative” for the similarly deranged.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:58 am
These are the days I wish I was of less repute, I would totally vandalize the entire place, hmm. To bad I have that “ethics” thing hanging over my head. Like it or not, they have a right to say that drivel.
Makes me sick. Stupid Creationists, Science is for _smart people_, stop trying to think already and go back to singing your 7-11 praise songs and eating some dead nonexistent Jewish guy.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Heh, scales from your eyes… vs creationists… Brilliant!
December 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
A site like “Creation Wiki” stands no chance of being correctly edited. You’re dealing with people who think 2+2=Jesus.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I spent the last half hour browsing creation wiki, but it took me five minutes to realize it would not be possible to change anything.
It’s really hard to resist, though.
Anyway, if you want to see something funny, check out the discussion on geocentricity.
It’s amusing to see creationists argue with other creationists on basic Physics. =)
December 10th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
http://creationwiki.org/Geocentricity
Here is the link if you’re lazy.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Phil,
I looked into the literature on redshift quantization some recently and didn’t get the impression that it had been disproven. Could you give at least an outline of how it has been disproven? I didn’t read the whole thread that was your first link, but what I did read showed that there is indeed still a controversy. As I’m sure you must know, there have been many papers showing quantization.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
I fully believe in quantized redshifts. What I don’t believe is that the level-splitting is at all detectable given the precision of our tools.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Blog updated, and it still thinks I’m spam.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Interesting article on NG: “Human Evolution Speeding Up, Study Says”. Now, if we could only evolve ignorance out of our genes…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html
December 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
As my comment vanished into the tubes, here’s the link again if you dare!
http://creationwiki.org/White_Hole_Cosmology
December 11th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Of course scientists have now managed to go back to just before the Big Bang…and they have managed to isolate a sound….”ooops!”
December 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
This nonsense is spreading like a virulent disease, especially here in Texas (as Phil often points out).
Among other things, it will be the death of the political right in this country if it is not the death of the country altogether.
It encourages; indeed, institutionalizes; systematic deceit among conservative political candidates.
If asked the usual question, “do you believe in evolution?”, the HONEST answer from most credible candidates would be something along the lines of “What do you think I am, an illiterate peasant? Of course I believe in evolution.” I know this for a fact about certain state and local candidates and I would be surprised if it is not true of most presidential candidates as well. They are, after all, lawyers and high-end business types for the most part.
Instead, though, they have to lie or hedge or tie themselves in knots to avoid offending the superstition lobby. The cumulative effect of this is easily imagined.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
But you have to give them some credit. They’re so convinced they’re right they only bother supporting the whole thing with one quote at the very bottom of the page. Genius!
If only my English or Physics or Astronomy teacher would let me get away with only using one quote…
December 11th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Perhaps there is room for small edits here an there just to change the tone of the articles. They’re even negative about “Theistic Evolutionism,” listing it among anti-creation ideas.
Anyway, I might try to put together a page pointing out how the persecution they feel they are experiencing is not an evil conspiracy by the NSF but merely a matter of long-standing Constitutional law.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Phil, How does Google ads get away with splashing a non-movable Ford ad over your first paragraph? What bloody cheek.
Peter
December 12th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
The Redshift Quantization is BLANK – they must have forgot. I understood nearly nothing in that website, and hopefully it doesn’t poison my mind. By the way, they are STEALING the “science”-related words (that includes the title of that wiki) again.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Arg! They’ve gone and nicked the Stargate!
December 12th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Leave it be and let it go.
People have the right to believe whatever they want to,
even if it is creationist rubbish.
You would have more luck teaching a sheep to walk on its hind legs and read poetry.
Folcrom.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I have just pointed someone to the Creationwiki. He was starting to spread his young earth and creation babble in Wikipedia, so I had to kick him out.
I hope he won’t come back. I really hope that he goes over to Creationwiki and stays there.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Are there any sites that provide rebuttals against the claims at creationwiki? I thought that perhaps evowiki would but it appears that they do not have replies to creationwiki.