Wikipedia or Conservapedia?

Is it Wikipedia, or is it Conservapedia?

Or are they one and the same now, as conservatives seem to continue infiltrating volunteer admin positions at Wikipedia?

In the ongoing saga of conservative attempts to mold Wikipedia to reflect their fantasy world, another of my edits was reverted yesterday. I received a note from a volunteer admin saying that "one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed."

I hear ya, smartypants. Trouble is, I hadn't added an external link. So - as Judge Mills Lane might have said - his complaint is "ppphh!"

Evidently, some of these volunteer admins hallucinate about external links that don't even exist. When they sit at their computers in their sheltered home offices, pounding out whiny notes to dissidents, they probably see external links floating through the air around them. They probably try to grab these external links, only to discover that they're mere illusions.

It's sort of like the time Mitch McConnell hallucinated about a letter he claimed I sent him.

As for the volunteer editor in this latest matter, I checked his Wikipedia page, and it said, "This user page has been vandalized many, many times."

Gee, I wonder why. Remember, this guy is probably the type who thinks "vandalism" means correcting conservatives' false information.

We all love Wikipedia, but as long as conservative revisionism is allowed to continue there, the reader-edited online encyclopedia becomes less and less useful.