Discovery Institute—The Modern Martin Luther King

Edit Wikipedia to tell the truth about ID creationism.

You mean by telling the truth? Sure! We can do that!
(Image from the Discovery Institute)

The geniuses over at the Discovery Institute have just now discovered that you can’t believe everything you see in print (if only they’d apply this lesson to the Bible or their own website). In response to an article they just read in the Seattle Times, the DI has posted a blubbering article on their website: “Notice to Students: Wikipedia No Longer an Acceptable Source”:

According to a recent article in the Seattle Times, “School officials unite in banning Wikipedia,” because “[t]here have been many cases of incorrect information on the Web site, some of which has been biased.”

I reported on this way back in March of this year! It was in response to a nationally-reported story on MSNBC. I guess until something shows up in their local paper, the Discovery Institute remains clueless. If that’s the case, what can we do to get the Seattle Times to publish a story explaining evolution?

The DI continues:

The article reports that sadly, “A teacher researching Martin Luther King Jr. found white supremacist information in his entry.”

Yes, just go onto Wikipedia’s history page for any controversial subject, and you’ll find racist or similarly-retarded comments scattered among the prior versions. The hate-filled misinformation usually doesn’t last long on the popular articles, because somebody will spot it quickly and remove it. More obscure articles are likely to retain bad content for a bit longer. Unfortunately, some people are bound to read the bad versions before they get corrected. All it takes is one person peeing in the pool to ruin the swim for everybody else.

But if the DI is so all-fired concerned about people inserting misinformation into wiki articles, they should direct their wrath to the real culprit: fundie-approved Conservapedia. First of all, most of the articles there that haven’t been tampered with are packed full of misinformation. But even funnier is that Conservapedia articles are probably sabotaged way more frequently than anything on Wikipedia. Here’s an article I wrote about vandalism on the Conservapedia Kangaroo page.

Getting back to the DI’s article:

Dr. King is one of my personal heroes. His perseverance in support of a just cause, and his calls for civil, reasoned responses to false personal attacks and persecution should be seen as a model for any ID proponent on how to behave in the present political climate. [emphasis in original]

So now they’re comparing themselves to Martin Luther King, Jr.! That’s so insultingly, stupefyingly arrogant that it leaves me speechless! Have they been arrested? Have they had police dogs and firehoses turned on them? Have assassins been shooting at them? Their position (creationism) is so right and true, and they’re being oppressed by the big bad establishment scientists that they’re kindred spirits with Dr. King. They’re the inheritors of his legacy!

Police attacking civil rights demonstrators, 1963.

8 Responses to “Discovery Institute—The Modern Martin Luther King”

  1. ParrotLover77 Says:

    Wikipedia has bots that do a pretty good job (getting better by the version) of spotting defacement even obscure articles. I never have liked wikipedia’s “live right now” editing methodology for absolutely anybody (oh, what wonders a mandatory 24 hour waiting period for edits to go live by newbies would do to cut down on defacement) but it is what it is. Print articles have errors too, but at least wiki’s can be edited immediately. …And also locked from further sabotage by senior editors. The system works relatively well. The key to wikipedia research is to FOLLOW THE SOURCE LINKS FOR QUOTES! In fact, the “how to use Wikipedia for research” article ON Wikipedia says exactly that. Researchers (or more likely kids doing reports) need to use wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter) as a starting point for learning general information and then RESEARCH THE CITED SOURCES for detailed information, quotes, and to fill up their Works Cited (or are they calling it bibliographies again?). Simple solution for a not complicated problem.

    Guess what happens when you have unadultered free speech? Sometimes you hear things you don’t like. That doesn’t make the medium of delivery bad. I think the 700 Club is brain rotting garbage, but that doesn’t make everything on TV bad. Just as the occassional defaced article on Wikipedia doesn’t make Wikipedia’s entire resource bad.

  2. ausyoyo Says:

    I think the funniest/saddest thig about conservapedia is that the top 9 viewed articles were about gay sex (from a screwy fundie point of view). Talk about a monomania! It’s not just evolution these guys are denying!

  3. Michael Nietzsche Says:

    Can I start wikiing the bible to correct all the pathetically stupid inacurracies in that disgusting book????

  4. Michael Nietzsche Says:

    You know the old saying…. He who dealt it smelt it???? Maybe those Krizstians are somehow trying to tell us all that…. they’re all QUEER for Geebus???? I wonder how many of them would suck his dick and lick his asshole if he re-appeared today???

  5. Michael Nietzsche Says:

    Excuse my language………….. Krixstians bring out the WORST in me!!!!!! Because they’re so f–king stupid! Sometimes listening to them makes my head want to explode!

  6. ericsan Says:

    The ones who scream the loudest against homosexuality are the same who eventually get caught tap dancing in public toilets, like Larry Craig, Ted Haggart, Bob Allen and their friends. There is a very obvious reason to explain why they spend so much time discussing it. If they were straight most of their time and energy would be devoted to pussy!

  7. tracie mills Says:

    Is there anyway for me to get a copy of this picture?

  8. Santa Says:

    Just to say hallo – your pieces always cheers me up. Ciao from Sarajevo, Bosnia
    Santa