This list goes on. I know it’s nonsensicalness, but hey he is an embarrassment to Australian policing - but what’s even worse is he is to dumb to take the hint. Get on your bike and #$%# off.

I’d suggest starting off with Atheism and Abortion before moving onto Environmentalism (”Environmentalists are supposedly concerned with protecting the environment …”)

So, I transferred the bulk of the article across to a new Mick Keelty uncyclopedia page so that others can enjoy this bit of satire for some time.

I hope the satirist will keep on tweaking this article.

Because I know the difference between apologia and the current state of academic scholarship on issues affecting that religious group it stands out like a sore thumb, but for your average Wikipedia surfer they would just take the entry as standard encyclopedia grade.

And if you think I’m being paranoid, when an academic expert was approached by a Penguin editor to write an entry on that particular religious group, and their hierarchy heard of it, they sent two national representatives to try and persuade the editor to drop the academic and accept a submission from them instead on the basis that they wouldn’t be biased *snort*.

So if this is one example of where I know Wikipedia can be affected by religious zeal, it makes me suspect this is the case for most subjects that have their zealots.

Not for much longer, I suspect. I understand that Wikipedia administrators spend an inordinate amount of time correcting “joke” entries. It seems inevitable that registration will eventually become a pre-requisite for editing.

Reverting to a less accurate and much less funny version is also trivially easy.