In other words, you think it's a black operation, not just dumb. I don't. I've seen this sort of stuff. I know it is an effective tactic, but the site viewed as a whole does not seem to be a sophisticated "counter-intelligence" operation.
Now, of course, some day I will find out that it was, and look unsophisticated myself. A successful operation might be deliberately be made clumsy in order to avoid detection by genuine conservatives. Certainly the site is harmful to conservative interests.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Charlotte Webb [mailto:charlottethewebb@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 1, 2007 10:06 AM To: angela.anuszewski@gmail.com, 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Conservapedia an attack site?
On 6/1/07, Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com wrote:
If I didn't know they were actually for real, I'd think it was a parody. :)
It looks more like an attempt to undermine the credibility of the political right, seemingly (but not really) from within. Whereas a parody would be written for readers' amusement, this borders more on well-poisoning/trolling, where the desired effect is to incite backlash by readers who assume "serious conservatives" actually share their views, hence the name the site has chosen.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/1/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
In other words, you think it's a black operation, not just dumb. I don't.
So do you think the people contributing to this site generally believe the things they write? Maybe some of them are genuine extremists and others are humorists/trolls (of moderate-to-liberal origin). Maybe even they don't know who's who.
I've seen this sort of stuff. I know it is an effective tactic, but the site viewed as a whole does not seem to be a sophisticated "counter-intelligence" operation.
Maybe it wasn't intended as such.
Certainly the site is harmful to conservative interests.
Agreed. Average people try not to think too much about the political views they inherit from friends, family, teachers, employers. Caricatures like these of their own beliefs will probably influence a portion of mainstream conservatives to become less moderate, and another portion to become more moderate.
Making political partisanship (left or right) less absolute can't possibly be a bad thing, even if it's not the actual goal of that project.
—C.W.
On 01/06/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
In other words, you think it's a black operation, not just dumb. I don't.
So do you think the people contributing to this site generally believe the things they write? Maybe some of them are genuine extremists and others are humorists/trolls (of moderate-to-liberal origin). Maybe even they don't know who's who.
As far as I can tell, the site started out in good faith (if a little crankily) and was an accurate representation of what its authors were wanting.
Then they, er, got famous. And got hit hard, by a thousand enthusiastic vandals and parodists and real cranks... and the entire thing went completely incomprehensible.
On 01/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, the site started out in good faith (if a little crankily) and was an accurate representation of what its authors were wanting. Then they, er, got famous. And got hit hard, by a thousand enthusiastic vandals and parodists and real cranks... and the entire thing went completely incomprehensible.
Yeah. I think there's a fair bit of discontent toward Wikipedia, because it's (a) hugely popular (b) has ridiculous Google page rank (because people keep linking to it) (c) there are no effective competitors. So Andrew Schlafly thought he could do a wiki encyclopedia more suited to his views, and publicised it as "a conservative version of Wikipedia" ... and it got flattened by the attention of gawkers who could hardly believe these people's views were for real. The site works now, but it was down under the load for a fair while.
- d.
On 6/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
In other words, you think it's a black operation, not just dumb. I
don't.
So do you think the people contributing to this site generally believe the things they write? Maybe some of them are genuine extremists and others are humorists/trolls (of moderate-to-liberal origin). Maybe even they don't know who's who.
As far as I can tell, the site started out in good faith (if a little crankily) and was an accurate representation of what its authors were wanting.
Then they, er, got famous. And got hit hard, by a thousand enthusiastic vandals and parodists and real cranks... and the entire thing went completely incomprehensible.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I'm disappointed to find out it started out as one thing, then morphed into something incredibly amusing. I really did think it was one of the only good liberal joke sites on the web--both sides in American politics take themselves too seriously and really think they are unique. Well, one less fun site for me, I suppose. KP