= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nshepperd comments on Some Heuristics for Evaluating the Soundness of the Academic Mainstream in Unfamiliar Fields - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (272)
I thought Conservapedia as a whole was a hoax. Poe's law...
As far as I can tell a lot of it is a hoax, though the founder may have a hard time telling which editors are creative trolls and which editors (if any) are serious.
It is periodically asserted by people claiming to be former contributors to Conservapedia that the founder simply endorses contributors who overtly support him and rejects those who overtly challenge him.
If that were true, I'd expect that editors who are willing to craft contributions that overtly support the main themes of the site get endorsed, even if their articles are absurd to the point of self-parody.
I haven't made a study of CP, but that sounds awfully plausible to me.
You will be unsurprised to hear that CP has played out in precisely that manner: a parodist coming in, dancing on the edges of Poe and wreaking havoc by feeding Schlafly's biases.
I am hereby stealing the phrase "Dancing on the edge of Poe."
I figured I should let you know.