Wikipedia is a wonderful thing. In spite of recent criticism of the veracity of the articles, it's still a formidable tool. It was never meant to be taken as seriously as the Encyclopedia Britannica, but to provide as much info as possible in a wide range of topics and fast. News hit wikipedia faster than any other encyclopedia. It was obvious from the beginning that wikipedia's advantages (faster articles, wide variety, popular contribution) would also be it's downfalls. So why are we suddenly reacting with all this fake outrage? Any dimwit already knew that wikipedia facts needed to be double-checked. That doesn't mean that I'm against rectifying these mistakes. The people who have been slandered by these pranks should be able to make corrections. But, hey! what's the fuss? We all knew this from the minute we started to use wikipedia.
What am I getting at? Ah, yes, wikipedia. Today I discovered many things which are probably obvious to anyone who doesn't get their anglo culture from the Daily Show. Bear with me: I'm culturally challenged.
a) I discovered that homosexuality was a crime in Texas in the US of A until the Supreme Court ruled against that law in Lawrence v. Texas . I thought that law had been chucked much earlier than that. Jeez, those guys were pushing twenty-first century. Maybe that was the point: they didn't want those retrograde laws inching into the new century. Our children would probably be baffled by most of them.
b) I discovered that there is such a thing as the Homosexual Agenda. I know quite a few homosexuals and all this time they were keeping their agenda from me. I'm running off to the phone to shout at all my gay friends. Can't believe they never told me.
c) Got an idea! I'm gonna get myself a "Spanish Writer Agenda" and I will not share it. I might be bribed with greens deposited in my paypal address, but I can't guaranty anything... never thought about being bribed before.
d) quoting wikipedia:
Alan E. Sears and Craig Osten, president and vice-president of the Alliance Defense Fund, offer another characterization of the homosexual agenda:
It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called 'After the Ball,' where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame.... They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit: Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible... Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers... Give homosexual protectors a just cause... Make gays look good... Make the victimizers look bad... Get funds from corporate America.
What is a "private publication"? I want my next book to be publicly published! Should I worry about it being privately published instead? Do they mean vanity press, POD? That's the only kind of publishing I can think of that would never have any public repercussion whatsoever.
So all I ever got from wikipedia is the distinct impression as Asterix (or Obelix) said, that "These Romans are crazy" or modernized, "These Americans are crazy". I'm starting to think that the Evil Robot Monkeys are a artificial cleansing force of nature.