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 Adams鈥檚 鈥�42鈥� seem quite rational in comparison. If you鈥檙e a bit rushed, you can find a nice sampling in one place at . One story that caught our eye here is headlined 鈥淒id Bush crime family kill the Kennedys?鈥� You don鈥檛 have to be a card-carrying Republican to wonder how seriously this should be taken.
Advertisement
It鈥檚 a bit harder to tell with websites like , a sort of Wikipedia written by and for neoconservatives. Its founder Andrew Schlafly has said 鈥淚t鈥檚 impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral鈥�, an attitude that is evident in its articles. For example, until very recently Kim Jong Il was identified on Conservapedia as 鈥渢he dictator of North Korea and leader of the Democratic Party of North Korea鈥�, with a link to Conservapedia鈥檚 entry on the Democratic Party of the US. Wikipedia, on the other hand, identifies Kim as head of the Workers鈥� Party of Korea.
As might be expected, creationists have their say in Conservapedia. A typical entry says that all modern kangaroos 鈥渁re the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah鈥檚 Ark鈥�. That word 鈥渂aramin鈥� is a giveaway. It is creationist-speak for what scientists call species, but without the science 鈥� see Wikipedia again for a full, scathing explanation.
鈥淏en Craven has a packet of pills with the instruction 鈥淪wallow whole with a glass full of water鈥�. Craven, who thinks this would be very difficult, says: 鈥淪houldn鈥檛 that be 鈥榞lassful鈥�?鈥濃��
Conservapedia has no entry for evolution as such, only for 鈥渢heory of evolution鈥� because creationists insist that鈥檚 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 don鈥檛 always see eye to eye. Lately a few volunteers who know a bit of science have pitched in, and articles such as 鈥渄inosaur鈥� began to get more factual 鈥� 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. 鈥淒r. Richard Paley鈥� sneers that another contributor鈥檚 use of 鈥淏ritishisms鈥� makes the contributor look like 鈥渁 Wikipedia agitator鈥�. Nasty stuff 鈥� but hold on. Paley has written an account of a 鈥淐reation Science Fair鈥� 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 doesn鈥檛 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 鈥� 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: 鈥淎 new particle accelerator is able to recreate the moment before the big bang, says Tara Shears.鈥�
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 don鈥檛 think she said it either.
IN HIS local bookshop, Peter Wagner noticed a book entitled All The Tunes You鈥檝e Ever Wanted To Play. Alongside was another book entitled More of All the Tunes You鈥檝e 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 鈥渨ild鈥� in the wording on a pot of Tesco鈥檚 yogurt: 鈥淲ild Blueberry Yoghurt. West Country yoghurt blended with Channel Island cream. Wild blueberries from selected Canadian fruit farms.鈥�