The struggle for the authority of authorship has entered new terrain. Upset with the í¢â‚¬Ëœanti-American, anti-Christian biasí¢â‚¬â„¢ of on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia (hereby known as the Wikis), a group of conservative Christians based in the U.S have founded a counter-reference. Behold Conservapedia (hereby referred to as the Cons): an on-line encyclopedia that lies politically to the right of Genghis Kahn and philosophically lock-stepped with the í¢â‚¬ËœAdam and Eve were at risk of being stepped on by a T-rexí¢â‚¬â„¢ school of thinkers.

The ideological battle to define words and concepts is, of course, nothing new. Two centuries ago Noah Webster founded his famous dictionary on the belief that the new American spellings, as well as values and beliefs, were superior to Old Europeí¢â‚¬â„¢s. Malcolm X examined the ways in racism was inscribed into dictionary definitions of white and black and Soviet and American encyclopedias read like Manichean conceptual tug oí¢â‚¬â„¢ wars at the height of the Cold War. In these user-generated times, the role of being Definition Pimp has spawned a brave new struggle. The Cons are vexed because the Wikis have been spelling words in an un-American manner, which amounts to í¢â‚¬Ëœanti-Americanismí¢â‚¬â„¢. What if the author or editor of such entries is from a non-US English speaking place? Too late, the ghost of Websterí¢â‚¬â„¢s jingoistic lexicon merges with neo-conservative í¢â‚¬Ëœwith us or against us-ismí¢â‚¬â„¢. They form like Voltron: Bring it on Wikis!

í¢â‚¬ËœAnti-Americaní¢â‚¬â„¢ spelling is just one of the 32 í¢â‚¬Ëœproofsí¢â‚¬â„¢ of Wiki-bias that the Cons have nailed to the better-known encyclopediaí¢â‚¬â„¢s door. Others include the Wikis use of B.C.E (Before Common Era) instead of B.C (Before Christ), the alleged downplaying of Christianityí¢â‚¬â„¢s role in the Renaissance, and í¢â‚¬Ëœreading like a brochure for the abortion industryí¢â‚¬â„¢. Proof 12 shows how the inclusion of biographical details in biographical entries equates to a í¢â‚¬Ëœbias towards gossipí¢â‚¬â„¢ that relegates the Wikis to the status of the National Enquirer. Zing! Overall, the notion that research tools such as encyclopedias should adhere to objective, unbiased writing is paramount in the Cons' criticism of Wikipedia. Strange then, that the main page boasts í¢â‚¬ËœConservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America.í¢â‚¬â„¢ Yes, after painstakingly illustrating how unprofessional the Wikis are, stating that í¢â‚¬Å“the balance of the content in Wikipedia inevitably represents what its contributors find interesting to write aboutí¢â‚¬ , the Cons let that one slip. Now, if your whole raison dí¢â‚¬â„¢etre (thatí¢â‚¬â„¢s anti-American for í¢â‚¬Ëœpurposeí¢â‚¬â„¢) is being an alternative to a biased on-line encyclopedia, why proclaim youí¢â‚¬â„¢re í¢â‚¬Ëœfavoring Christianity and Americaí¢â‚¬â„¢? Glass Houses? Rocks? Some might say double standard, but the Cons are just fighting heretical fire with sanctimonious fire. Game on.

The scientific entries read like desperate pleas to consider creationism seriously. The entry on the second law of Thermodynamics does some late-cram physics before whimpering: í¢â‚¬Å“In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution.í¢â‚¬  The entry for Dinosaurs notes how the creatures were created on the 6th day of creation and cohabited in Eden with snakes, apples, fig leaves etc. A satisfying rebuke is given to those who point out they werení¢â‚¬â„¢t mentioned in the bible: The word í¢â‚¬Ëœdinosaurí¢â‚¬â„¢ hadní¢â‚¬â„¢t been invented yet! Double Zing! Global warming is reportedly a disputed theory put forward by scientists who are motivated by research grants. í¢â‚¬Å“Also, these scientists are mostly liberal atheists, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.í¢â‚¬  As such, Conservatives are í¢â‚¬Å“properly skepticalí¢â‚¬  of both global warming as a theory and the motivations of its proponents. Whaddya got on that Suzuki?

Political entries doní¢â‚¬â„¢t bode much better. The entry for France consists of the following: í¢â‚¬Å“A country in Europe. Thrived during the middle ages. The capitol is Paris, France, which was founded in the Middle Ages.í¢â‚¬  Thatí¢â‚¬â„¢s the whole entry. If you caní¢â‚¬â„¢t write anything nice, doní¢â‚¬â„¢t write anything at all, I guess. China is defined, in shocking grammar, as í¢â‚¬Å“the ancient civilization in the same place as the modern countryí¢â‚¬ , while Hitlerí¢â‚¬â„¢s genocidal habits are put down to í¢â‚¬Ëœatheistic liberalismí¢â‚¬â„¢. Castro is a ruthless dictator who í¢â‚¬Å“cannilyí¢â‚¬  exploits his high literacy rates while ruining Cuba. Clearly, without the Cons we would be bogged down in a craftily written Wiki-biasmire.

Whatí¢â‚¬â„¢s strange about the Wiki/Con struggle is how Conservapedia adopted the identical format and layout as WIkipedia. No matter how much they despise the Wikií¢â‚¬â„¢s secular message, they obviously prize ití¢â‚¬â„¢s medium. And so the battle for a definitive hyperspace commences. Stone age messages on fibre optic media. Ití¢â‚¬â„¢s almost as if the fundagelicals have been reading Marshall Mcluhan. Imagine the possibilitiesí¢â‚¬ ¦