What are the readers of Conservapedia, the “conservative” answer to Wikipedia, most obsessed with? According to their stats page as of November 20, 2007 at 4:26 p.m. EST, the top 10 most viewed pages are:
Conservapedia’s readership doth protest too much, methinks.
Here’s a collection of interesting memes, pictures, an cartoons floating around the internet that I…
Tap to see the source. This is yesterday’s daily New Yorker cartoon, created by Brendan…
C’mon, let it not be Asians this time. Last time was pretty bad. Here’s the…
Jon Stewart’s right, and we’ve been here before. Where we are now, I’ve been before…
Poppies thrive in overturned soil, which is why they bloom in battlefields. I’m in the…
In times of high dudgeon, there’s a tendency to throw integrity out the window. One…
View Comments
Ha! Snort! Conservatism and sex scandals - I wonder if they have that page in their Conservapedia.
Hey everyone, Conservapedia is a weird site. You'll notice I own conservatipedia, which is spelled different and designed to mock.
I found this article to be pretty funny. Who would of guessed gay bowel syndrome would be such a hot topic.
I noticed they changed the page counts probably yesterday. The other day I put the exact counts on my site, now gay bowel movement has only 100 page views instead of 300,000.
What a bunch of douchebags.
Well, it's true (and fairly obvious) that the stats are being boosted by refreshbots of some sort. But who wrote and sanctionned all those article - including gems like "Gay Bowel Syndrome" and "Homosexuality and Scotland" - in the first place? That was all Conservapedia's doing. More specifically, the doing of a certain User:Conservative, whose subsequent exploits can be viewed here.
With respect to RationalWiki, the boost was not actually any sort of organized or even acknowledged effort. You can see RationalWiki's stance on Conservapedia here - while their distaste for the site is apparent, vandalism, in general, is not condoned.
Evidently there's a good chance that whoever did this does have an account at RationalWiki, , but that doesn't make the site accountable for the vandalism - and certainly not for Conservapedia's inherent insanity anyway.
So in conclusion: it's still hilarious.