This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This has a problem. Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations states that "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Sources 9 and 11 are blogs, which regardless of being hosted by news websites, are opinion pieces. The section needs to be rewritten to address that or removed. With regards to source 10, I believe that it is not NPOV as it was categorized as weird news. Geoff Plourde ( talk) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I just looked up the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page for the first time in several months, and on May 7, Andy Schlafly brought up his grievance about this widely-discussed claim, which I commend my fellow editors for changing:
“ | Wikipedia cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about Conservapedia claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy," but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims. | ” |
I think the "vulgar blog" referred to Maloney, the "liberal rant" to Clarke, and the "neutral" article to be Metro. It's a good thing we changed the lead's statement to reflect criticism rather than asserting opinion as fact. I hope we can appease the admin of CP this way, but I think Schlafly may have a good point about the reliability of sources. I mean, is Maloney's blog really necessary (given Schlafly doesn't like reading potty humor)? -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 05:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Why has the addition of the 'hate group' tag been reverted? The views that Conservapedia holds on homosexuals, Muslims, etc. clearly qualifies them as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.155.60 ( talk) 16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Why does some "hate group" watchdog have to sign off on it to make it true? Wikipedia itself defines hate groups as "An organized group or movement that advocates physical or verbal aggression toward or refusal to interact with persons on the basis of those persons' possession and/or exhibition of a certain characteristic." Clearly, Conservapedia does this with homosexuals.
I notice also that this entry bears the tag 'Free Encyclopedias.' Did the International Organization for the Monitoring of Encyclopedia Cost sign off on that? Or was it simply added because it's common sense?-- 76.89.155.60 ( talk) 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Where are all these rules coming from? Do you just make them up? What does controversial have to do with anything? Either it is accurate or it is not. I have cited Wikipedia's own definition of hate groups. Conservapedia CLEARLY fits that definition. Why is it necessary for a third party to confirm that they fit the definition? Why is it necessary that they receive sufficient attention? Again, either it is accurate or it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.155.60 ( talk) 07:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, the rules for tags are different. How do we know? Because tags cannot have citations. Even if we find that the International Organization for the Identification and Monitoring of Hate Groups has conducted their extensive peer review and has identified Conservapedia as the hate group they are, there's no way to cite that in a tag. Ergo, the tags are clearly meant to be based on common sense, not on citations. Furthermore, if the rules of wikipedia prevent us from adding accurate information to an article, then the rules should be ignored. That's not my idea--it's Wikipedia's: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Not adding information because the site is not "important enough" seems far more of an unsubstantiated value judgment than anything I've said.-- 76.89.155.60 ( talk) 13:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we say that "some consider them to be a hate group," since they acknowledge that themselves now on their website?[ [2]] Yeah, sure, they're just linking back to here, but if the discussion is becoming a thing-in-and-of-itself, and not referential, and it's among those on the online free encyclopedia editing community, can't we talk about it? Most hate groups that would qualify for a tag 1. are called this by parallel organizations advocating strongly different positions, and 2. dispute that claim, making it controversial. Or, if they want to push back, that makes it a thing, and that's something this article can talk about. I'm just sayin'... 69.94.192.147 ( talk) 04:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The guys at Conservapedia sure are jonesing for us to call them a hate group, just so they can claim to be persecuted. Check out their main page. Personally, I think that just because they hate, doens't make them a hate group. Let's take the high road here. Czolgolz ( talk) 14:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey CP haters, why don't you check with the current administration to see if they define CP as a "right-wing extremist group." That's probably as close as you're going to get. 67.135.49.42 ( talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can tell from the history that the Bible verse is not updated daily, unless by daily, you mean "occasionally less than weekly". 207.67.17.45 ( talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we revise our viewpoint on conservapedia as an encyclopedia, as it does not follow the editorial standards of a true encyclopedia; I suggest a better name be chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
To paraphrase what I said "a while back" - if the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (which had "a particular viewpoint"), Wookiepedia, and the paper "An Encyclopedia of (obscure subject)" are allowed as encyclopedias, then Conservapedia can be so defined. What is needed is a succinct term to define "a website or paper volume which has at least some of the attributes of an encyclopedia, but is of a non-global nature or particular viewpoint." Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not that Conservapedia shouldn't be defined as an encyclopedia, for the reason that it has a particular viewpoint while wookiepedia is considered one, the issue is that Conservapedia does not follow the editorial standards that other encyclopedias do. Michael Kirschner ( talk) 14:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
So what is the consensus on whether or not Conservapedia should be defined as an encyclopedia Michael Kirschner ( talk) 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to Beeblebrox ( talk) Again this is not about the political stance thw website slants to I could make the same article about a liberal site, the issue that stands is if their editorial standards or lack their of are the same editorial standards that fit in with accepted definitions of encyclopedias Michael Kirschner ( talk) 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK we need some more opinions on this does Conservapedia's editorial style or lack their of fit in with the definition of encyclopedias, forget the fact that the site is utter trash, forget the fact that it can be classified as a hate group against the gay community, turn a blind eye to the political stance and instead focus this debate only on if the editorial standards or lack their of fit in with the definitions of an encyclopedia Michael Kirschner ( talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK how do you initiate a request for comment? Michael Kirschner ( talk) 20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance Beeblebrox Michael Kirschner ( talk) 00:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
{{rfctag|}}
Does Conservapedia adhere to the editorial standards of an encyclopedia? Does Conservapedia fit in with the definition of an encyclopedia? Remember this is not an issue of political stance the same can be said about a liberal encyclopedia, the question is does Conservapedia fit within the accepted definition of an encyclopedia? Michael Kirschner ( talk) 00:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to define or describe anything. Find reliable third party sources which reject the term. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
My $0.02: Before reaching any conclusion, would someone mind listing what the required editorial standards are (For the question regarding whether it fit in with the definition, we are using the definition(s) found in here, right?)? I think a list of standards is needed in order to objectively evaluate whether it adhere to the editorial standards. K61824 ( talk) 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedia isn't defined by "editorial standards". I don't know why anyone would claim that it was. I like to use a dictionary for definitions - (I know, what a concept) - and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate says an encyclopedia is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". Unless someone can find a dictionary that defines an encyclopedia in terms of "editorial standards", I'm going with Merriam-Webster. Conservapedia's low editorial standards make it useless as an encyclopedia (except perhaps as an encyclopedia of Right-Wing craziness), but they don't make it not an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It may be a crappy and overwhelmingly biased encyclopedia, but it identifies itself as an "encyclopedia", and categories aren't the place to try and enforce external judgement about whether it meets some minimum encyclopedic standard.— Kww( talk) 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
We should say it's an encyclopedia because the sources say so. We can't use original research to say if it is or isn't. Totnesmartin ( talk) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to echo the above comments; the question posed here is irrelevant. The only question we ought to be concerned with is whether or not the website is typically referred to as an encyclopaedia in the reliable sources. End of story. Skomorokh 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Referring to my comment above - is there a suitable term for 'encyclopedia-like' entities (paper or web)? And how does CP compare with the Great Soviet Encyclopedia in having a partisan viewpoint? What would Trotsky have said about CP's comment on Pravda's interpretation of Barack Obama's activities? (at [3]? Any truth in the allegation? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Comedy
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I propose including a section in this article about how the erroneous, bigoted articles that exist on Conservapedia (most of them) can provide a source of entertainment to casual, yet informed internet users. The site is not only for conservative bigots, but also serves as a great source of amusement for a plethora of other users. However, I lack the level head required to make such an addition without making it seem biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.240.193 ( talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia! This is a joke right!?!?!? English Bobby ( talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
{outdent} I hear you, but I must say I really, really dislike the tendency to edit this article-- or any other article-- in response to Conservapedia's criticisms of Wikipedia. If the people behind Conservapedia want a hopelessly biased polemic barely masquerading as an encyclopedia, that's their business. But for us to edit Wikipedia specifically to address their viewpoint and criticisms is to produce either a like copy or an equally biased "alternative"... neither of which passes the NPOV test. -- JeffBillman ( talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Hello everyone (if that is your real name),
I'm well aware of the allegations made at RationalWiki against Conservapedia admins with respect to plagiarism and abuses of power. However, there is really no point asking TK about this here. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that you'll get an answer on this talk page if he has already refused to give an answer on CP or via email. Secondly, there is no way of knowing for sure that TK-CP really is the CP admin. Thirdly, even if you do get an answer, we can only accept reliable, third-party secondary sources here... so you couldn't do anything constructive to improve the article as a result.
If you genuinely want to improve the discussions of plagiarism and admin actions in the article, then look for references in reliable media articles. If you just want to press TK for some kind of confession, then please talk, talk, talk about it at some librrull vandal site instead. Godspeed. ;) Papa November ( talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit by Ttiotsw ( talk · contribs): (rv, for us to compare the two policies is WP:OR. Find a WP:RS that says this.) How many comparison pages on Wikipedia might be deleted under such an interpretation of WP:OR? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears as if there are several editors here who seem to have a conflict of interest who are editing. I don't mean any prejudice to TK-CP, but as he claims to be an administrator of Conservapedia, I don't think it is wise for him to actively edit this article. Similarly, there are a couple of editors who have identified on Wikipedia that they are members of RationalWiki, which is a site that is generally opposed to Conservapedia. I do not think these editors should actively edit this article either. I do not mean any prejudice to these editors as well.
As far as any allegations concerning Conservapedia, if it is not reliably sourced, it must be removed from the article and if it violates BLP, the revision should be requested deleted. Sourcing from either Conservapedia or RationalWiki is not reliable for this article.
My own personal opinion is I do not find any administrator on Conservapedia, aside from Andrew Schlafly, (or his or her actions) to be notable yet. This includes TK of Conservapedia.
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.
Lulaq ( talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Most people have 'pet interests' - and will develop the articles in those areas; and some people with strong viewpoints that could amount to COI #in particular areas# can be neutral elsewhere - or 'able and willing' to develop the articles in question without overly pressing their viewpoint.
Conservapedia is in 'the category of topics' which arouses strong viewpoints for and (several angles of) against - and the talk pages of which are likely to develop into discussion forums on the merits or otherwise of the subject and other editors, proponents and straw persons involved or assumed to be involved in the discussion, and 'a chorus of so what' among passers-by. Jackiespeel ( Talk) 17:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why this section is included in an article on Conservapedia, instead of being in an article of its own (possibly with a "see also" link). Only toward the end of the section is the slightest (and it is slight, as of today) connection between the two mentioned (and it may be a mistake: "Conservapedia Bible"). It seems that somebody desperately wanted to say something about the CBP, but didn't have a better place to put it, so dumped it here. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this. If it is not, let me know. It’s about conservapedia’s criticisms against Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I’m familiar with objections against global warming, evolution, the big bang, & the scientific established age of the earth, but I’ve never seen objections against Relativity, so this is pretty new for me. Are there any responses against Conservapedia's criticisms of Relativity? Are any of their claims against Relativity valid? Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that Andrew Schafly warrants a seperate page because I believe he is noteworthy enough to warrant one. Typing in his name will redirect here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookingthrough ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Conservapedia is far-right, stop removing that comment. Communists are far-left; I doubt any of them would object to being called that, so what's the big deal? If conservapedia isn't far right, nothing is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.97.107 ( talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
doesnt it seem silly to accuse a conserative themed website of bias? John Asfukzenski ( talk) 02:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point. The very title confirms bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.146.147 ( talk) 01:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This has a problem. Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations states that "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Sources 9 and 11 are blogs, which regardless of being hosted by news websites, are opinion pieces. The section needs to be rewritten to address that or removed. With regards to source 10, I believe that it is not NPOV as it was categorized as weird news. Geoff Plourde ( talk) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I just looked up the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" page for the first time in several months, and on May 7, Andy Schlafly brought up his grievance about this widely-discussed claim, which I commend my fellow editors for changing:
“ | Wikipedia cites vulgar blogs and liberal rants as though they are encyclopedic authorities. For example, its entry about Conservapedia claims that "[s]everal articles on the site have reputations for bias and inaccuracy," but its citations for that falsehood consist of a vulgar blog, a liberal rant, and an article that takes a neutral position. None of Wikipedia's three "authorities" make any statement about the "reputation" of Conservapedia as Wikipedia claims. | ” |
I think the "vulgar blog" referred to Maloney, the "liberal rant" to Clarke, and the "neutral" article to be Metro. It's a good thing we changed the lead's statement to reflect criticism rather than asserting opinion as fact. I hope we can appease the admin of CP this way, but I think Schlafly may have a good point about the reliability of sources. I mean, is Maloney's blog really necessary (given Schlafly doesn't like reading potty humor)? -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 05:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Why has the addition of the 'hate group' tag been reverted? The views that Conservapedia holds on homosexuals, Muslims, etc. clearly qualifies them as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.155.60 ( talk) 16:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Why does some "hate group" watchdog have to sign off on it to make it true? Wikipedia itself defines hate groups as "An organized group or movement that advocates physical or verbal aggression toward or refusal to interact with persons on the basis of those persons' possession and/or exhibition of a certain characteristic." Clearly, Conservapedia does this with homosexuals.
I notice also that this entry bears the tag 'Free Encyclopedias.' Did the International Organization for the Monitoring of Encyclopedia Cost sign off on that? Or was it simply added because it's common sense?-- 76.89.155.60 ( talk) 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Where are all these rules coming from? Do you just make them up? What does controversial have to do with anything? Either it is accurate or it is not. I have cited Wikipedia's own definition of hate groups. Conservapedia CLEARLY fits that definition. Why is it necessary for a third party to confirm that they fit the definition? Why is it necessary that they receive sufficient attention? Again, either it is accurate or it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.155.60 ( talk) 07:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, the rules for tags are different. How do we know? Because tags cannot have citations. Even if we find that the International Organization for the Identification and Monitoring of Hate Groups has conducted their extensive peer review and has identified Conservapedia as the hate group they are, there's no way to cite that in a tag. Ergo, the tags are clearly meant to be based on common sense, not on citations. Furthermore, if the rules of wikipedia prevent us from adding accurate information to an article, then the rules should be ignored. That's not my idea--it's Wikipedia's: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Not adding information because the site is not "important enough" seems far more of an unsubstantiated value judgment than anything I've said.-- 76.89.155.60 ( talk) 13:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Could we say that "some consider them to be a hate group," since they acknowledge that themselves now on their website?[ [2]] Yeah, sure, they're just linking back to here, but if the discussion is becoming a thing-in-and-of-itself, and not referential, and it's among those on the online free encyclopedia editing community, can't we talk about it? Most hate groups that would qualify for a tag 1. are called this by parallel organizations advocating strongly different positions, and 2. dispute that claim, making it controversial. Or, if they want to push back, that makes it a thing, and that's something this article can talk about. I'm just sayin'... 69.94.192.147 ( talk) 04:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The guys at Conservapedia sure are jonesing for us to call them a hate group, just so they can claim to be persecuted. Check out their main page. Personally, I think that just because they hate, doens't make them a hate group. Let's take the high road here. Czolgolz ( talk) 14:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey CP haters, why don't you check with the current administration to see if they define CP as a "right-wing extremist group." That's probably as close as you're going to get. 67.135.49.42 ( talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can tell from the history that the Bible verse is not updated daily, unless by daily, you mean "occasionally less than weekly". 207.67.17.45 ( talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we revise our viewpoint on conservapedia as an encyclopedia, as it does not follow the editorial standards of a true encyclopedia; I suggest a better name be chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
To paraphrase what I said "a while back" - if the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (which had "a particular viewpoint"), Wookiepedia, and the paper "An Encyclopedia of (obscure subject)" are allowed as encyclopedias, then Conservapedia can be so defined. What is needed is a succinct term to define "a website or paper volume which has at least some of the attributes of an encyclopedia, but is of a non-global nature or particular viewpoint." Jackiespeel ( talk) 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue is not that Conservapedia shouldn't be defined as an encyclopedia, for the reason that it has a particular viewpoint while wookiepedia is considered one, the issue is that Conservapedia does not follow the editorial standards that other encyclopedias do. Michael Kirschner ( talk) 14:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
So what is the consensus on whether or not Conservapedia should be defined as an encyclopedia Michael Kirschner ( talk) 16:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to Beeblebrox ( talk) Again this is not about the political stance thw website slants to I could make the same article about a liberal site, the issue that stands is if their editorial standards or lack their of are the same editorial standards that fit in with accepted definitions of encyclopedias Michael Kirschner ( talk) 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK we need some more opinions on this does Conservapedia's editorial style or lack their of fit in with the definition of encyclopedias, forget the fact that the site is utter trash, forget the fact that it can be classified as a hate group against the gay community, turn a blind eye to the political stance and instead focus this debate only on if the editorial standards or lack their of fit in with the definitions of an encyclopedia Michael Kirschner ( talk) 18:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
OK how do you initiate a request for comment? Michael Kirschner ( talk) 20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance Beeblebrox Michael Kirschner ( talk) 00:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
{{rfctag|}}
Does Conservapedia adhere to the editorial standards of an encyclopedia? Does Conservapedia fit in with the definition of an encyclopedia? Remember this is not an issue of political stance the same can be said about a liberal encyclopedia, the question is does Conservapedia fit within the accepted definition of an encyclopedia? Michael Kirschner ( talk) 00:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to define or describe anything. Find reliable third party sources which reject the term. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 01:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
My $0.02: Before reaching any conclusion, would someone mind listing what the required editorial standards are (For the question regarding whether it fit in with the definition, we are using the definition(s) found in here, right?)? I think a list of standards is needed in order to objectively evaluate whether it adhere to the editorial standards. K61824 ( talk) 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
An encyclopedia isn't defined by "editorial standards". I don't know why anyone would claim that it was. I like to use a dictionary for definitions - (I know, what a concept) - and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate says an encyclopedia is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject". Unless someone can find a dictionary that defines an encyclopedia in terms of "editorial standards", I'm going with Merriam-Webster. Conservapedia's low editorial standards make it useless as an encyclopedia (except perhaps as an encyclopedia of Right-Wing craziness), but they don't make it not an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 03:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
It may be a crappy and overwhelmingly biased encyclopedia, but it identifies itself as an "encyclopedia", and categories aren't the place to try and enforce external judgement about whether it meets some minimum encyclopedic standard.— Kww( talk) 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
We should say it's an encyclopedia because the sources say so. We can't use original research to say if it is or isn't. Totnesmartin ( talk) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to echo the above comments; the question posed here is irrelevant. The only question we ought to be concerned with is whether or not the website is typically referred to as an encyclopaedia in the reliable sources. End of story. Skomorokh 19:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Referring to my comment above - is there a suitable term for 'encyclopedia-like' entities (paper or web)? And how does CP compare with the Great Soviet Encyclopedia in having a partisan viewpoint? What would Trotsky have said about CP's comment on Pravda's interpretation of Barack Obama's activities? (at [3]? Any truth in the allegation? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Comedy
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I propose including a section in this article about how the erroneous, bigoted articles that exist on Conservapedia (most of them) can provide a source of entertainment to casual, yet informed internet users. The site is not only for conservative bigots, but also serves as a great source of amusement for a plethora of other users. However, I lack the level head required to make such an addition without making it seem biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.240.193 ( talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia! This is a joke right!?!?!? English Bobby ( talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
{outdent} I hear you, but I must say I really, really dislike the tendency to edit this article-- or any other article-- in response to Conservapedia's criticisms of Wikipedia. If the people behind Conservapedia want a hopelessly biased polemic barely masquerading as an encyclopedia, that's their business. But for us to edit Wikipedia specifically to address their viewpoint and criticisms is to produce either a like copy or an equally biased "alternative"... neither of which passes the NPOV test. -- JeffBillman ( talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Hello everyone (if that is your real name),
I'm well aware of the allegations made at RationalWiki against Conservapedia admins with respect to plagiarism and abuses of power. However, there is really no point asking TK about this here. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that you'll get an answer on this talk page if he has already refused to give an answer on CP or via email. Secondly, there is no way of knowing for sure that TK-CP really is the CP admin. Thirdly, even if you do get an answer, we can only accept reliable, third-party secondary sources here... so you couldn't do anything constructive to improve the article as a result.
If you genuinely want to improve the discussions of plagiarism and admin actions in the article, then look for references in reliable media articles. If you just want to press TK for some kind of confession, then please talk, talk, talk about it at some librrull vandal site instead. Godspeed. ;) Papa November ( talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit by Ttiotsw ( talk · contribs): (rv, for us to compare the two policies is WP:OR. Find a WP:RS that says this.) How many comparison pages on Wikipedia might be deleted under such an interpretation of WP:OR? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears as if there are several editors here who seem to have a conflict of interest who are editing. I don't mean any prejudice to TK-CP, but as he claims to be an administrator of Conservapedia, I don't think it is wise for him to actively edit this article. Similarly, there are a couple of editors who have identified on Wikipedia that they are members of RationalWiki, which is a site that is generally opposed to Conservapedia. I do not think these editors should actively edit this article either. I do not mean any prejudice to these editors as well.
As far as any allegations concerning Conservapedia, if it is not reliably sourced, it must be removed from the article and if it violates BLP, the revision should be requested deleted. Sourcing from either Conservapedia or RationalWiki is not reliable for this article.
My own personal opinion is I do not find any administrator on Conservapedia, aside from Andrew Schlafly, (or his or her actions) to be notable yet. This includes TK of Conservapedia.
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.
Lulaq ( talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Most people have 'pet interests' - and will develop the articles in those areas; and some people with strong viewpoints that could amount to COI #in particular areas# can be neutral elsewhere - or 'able and willing' to develop the articles in question without overly pressing their viewpoint.
Conservapedia is in 'the category of topics' which arouses strong viewpoints for and (several angles of) against - and the talk pages of which are likely to develop into discussion forums on the merits or otherwise of the subject and other editors, proponents and straw persons involved or assumed to be involved in the discussion, and 'a chorus of so what' among passers-by. Jackiespeel ( Talk) 17:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why this section is included in an article on Conservapedia, instead of being in an article of its own (possibly with a "see also" link). Only toward the end of the section is the slightest (and it is slight, as of today) connection between the two mentioned (and it may be a mistake: "Conservapedia Bible"). It seems that somebody desperately wanted to say something about the CBP, but didn't have a better place to put it, so dumped it here. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don’t know if this is the right place to ask this. If it is not, let me know. It’s about conservapedia’s criticisms against Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I’m familiar with objections against global warming, evolution, the big bang, & the scientific established age of the earth, but I’ve never seen objections against Relativity, so this is pretty new for me. Are there any responses against Conservapedia's criticisms of Relativity? Are any of their claims against Relativity valid? Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.104.5 ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that Andrew Schafly warrants a seperate page because I believe he is noteworthy enough to warrant one. Typing in his name will redirect here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookingthrough ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Conservapedia is far-right, stop removing that comment. Communists are far-left; I doubt any of them would object to being called that, so what's the big deal? If conservapedia isn't far right, nothing is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.97.107 ( talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
doesnt it seem silly to accuse a conserative themed website of bias? John Asfukzenski ( talk) 02:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point. The very title confirms bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.146.147 ( talk) 01:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)