![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The point of Wikipedia is to give unbiased, neutral information on a topic. This article does that in some ways, but the overall tone of the article seems to be trying to prove a point about the topic, rather than just providing information about it. I understand that this is a controversial subject, but in the interest of keeping this article encylopedic, it should be kept neutral and informational, and all points of view on the controversial subjects should be expressed.
Even if you can find references to back up all of your points about Conservapedia, it still doesn't mean that it's a balanced, neutral article.
I believe this article is simply too controversial and unbalanced to pass a GA nomination. Additionally, the article is not particularly stable and seems to be in the middle of a borderline edit war. These are all requirements of Good Article status. Snottywong 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have specific objections then raise them. Vague generalities are unhelpful. JoshuaZ 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not it achieves good article status is not that important to me, but I think that the reviewer should have atleast a basic understanding of the materical available for the subject. There is no sources to add the kind of content you bring up. Any source that meets WP:ATT has pretty much nothing positive to say. We have done our best with whats out their to make this as neutral as possible. This "balance" smacks of an undue weight clause almost. Tmtoulouse 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the idea that "all points of view on the controversial subjects should be expressed" isn't Wikipedia doctrine, but rather that of the dissident Larry Sanger's competing project. From what I can tell, the official policy of Wikipedia is to spend much effort hashing out a rough consensus on the issue after exploring all the available material and receiving input from a wide variety of divergent viewpoints in an often boisterous and spirited debate, then have an administrator lock the article and transcribe the telepathic commands of the vengeful spirit of Jimbo Wales. SmashTheState 03:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that either WP or Sanger's Citizendium says "all points of view should be expressed" -- WP has its NPOV guidelines, and Citizendium has its "Neutrality" policy which is quite similar. Conservapedia, notably, only says all views should be expressed in order to present, as it does, entries on "Evolutionary Theory" in which the supposed "other point of view," creationism and "intelligent design," is given ten times more space than the scientific view. WP and Citizendium both have plenty of "hashing" among wiki users; Conservapedia instead has "bashing" in which sysops descend, quash dissent, and lock the article so that they themselves can spin it as they like! Rapotter 03:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
absolutely correct. let me mention that these editors have made an honest effort to provide balance. these editors have and are willing to incorporate all pertinent information of encyclopedic value. this article provides fair and citable information about the subject without a POV.
since you have declared this article partial, how can we make it better, specifically?
SmashTheState makes a perfect Wikipedia point, but i know the principal editors strive for better.
παράδοξος
03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
without specific reasons for this article failing to meet the Good Article requirements, i propose resubmitting this article as a Good Article. i want to correct any deficiencies if there are real deficiencies. we've come a long way! παράδοξος 04:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My main point is not that there needs to be more referenced content added from a positive point of view thing is, we'd have to magic that content out of thin air, even the right-wing press thing it's a joke - Neutral content? yes, you have a point, Positive referenced material about CP? About as rare as rocking horse shit. -- Fredrick day 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
the main content of this article is relatively stable. the exception is minor vandalism and minor editing attributed to style preferences, grammar, spelling, or reflecting corresponding changes to Conservapedia. some of the content contained in this article is controversial, especially addressing the idealogical conflict between Conservapedia and Wikipedia. in the past two months i've worked on this project, there have been no edit wars and no major content objections. editing and discourse is cordial. article history and talk page archives corroborate. i concur with Fredrick day's, JoshuaZ's, and SmashTheState's assertions. παράδοξος 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think most of the issues with Conservapedia have been raised - and adding yet another "look at this" or "attitudes towards contributing editors" comment does not contribute to the argument. It suffers from many of the problems that are likely to affect wikis (short articles, vandalism, multiple editing confusion etc) - and probably the position it takes "encourages" those of a "creative editing persuasion" to do so.
Wikipedia is the best known of the wikis, and so is likely to attract the most attention - good, bad and otherwise. It serves many functions (including providing a home for at least some of the trivia Conservapedia complains about) - and can be improved, like any other source of information.
As Conservapedia has been around for some six months, perhaps a "state of play" review could be justified - to what extent does it live up to the claims it makes about itself?
Jackiespeel 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article does not hold Conservapedia up as the omnipotent source of encyclopedic information. Rightfully so, since no such claim is citeable. Conservapedia is a new website and maturing. Wikipedia's Conservapedia article will also grow with Conservapedia. the content of this article changes as Conservapedia changes. we have limited steadfast content we are able to provide at this early stage of Conservapedia's maturation. always remember, Conservapedia was created as a Wikipedia alternative by the Mr. Shafly. παράδοξος 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC) hagerman bot sux
My point was that six months is a reasonable time for any organic/developing website to establish itself, iron out teething problems etc - and the process should be ongoing.
Also - can people be consistent in spelling Mr S's name. Jackiespeel 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I believe that this entry should be kept short and to the point. Don't feed the beast. Just handle the description of CPedia like you would any other website. Honestly, it's not worth the trouble to do otherwise. CPedia is a Fundamentalist community that should live or die by its own merits. It disappoints me that its opponents have gone to the trouble of vandalizing it with satirical entries and bickering all over the talk pages of its "hot" topics with sarcastic comments. All this drama is, frankly, embarrassing and should be above us. Give them space and let them create their own encyclopedia. It means less Fundamentalist pressure on Wikipedia if they have their own sanctuary. Perhaps it is inaccurate for them to present themselves as conservatives, and perhaps it is unfair for them to label Wikipedia as liberal. But you know what? I don't give a shit and I'm tired of hearing about it. It's a tempest in a teapot. Quit editorializing and masking your opinions with cherry-picked citations. Get above that, and stay there. The readers of this website need calm judgment on our parts, for us to fully provide our service. Personally, I would not shed a fucking tear if the article ended after listing where CPedia differs from Wikipedia, and I don't think the Internet would either. Thank you. Stonedonkey 08:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Those krazee kidz over at CP have changed the logo again. It's similar, but the flag isn't "waving" anymore. If someone fixes this, please feel free (and bound) to completely delete this comment or archive it. Thank you. Huw Powell 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Could the block policy be referenced: [2]?
As of now, I would summarize it as follows:
Conservapedia encourages the sysops to "block early" for obscenity and vandalism. "Silliness or misguided entries or edits" result in editors being warned, although the definitons of "silliness" and "misguided" are not defined. The policy encourages sysops to not block for ideological differences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olin ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
I originally came here in order to indulge in some mischief. Noticing the experiences of others I realised that blatant vandalism or parody wouldn't work and a block would soon follow. Instead I decided to let sysops do the job for me. They being the ultimate source of facts here, see Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks:
Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked. Note: Their (sysops) instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed, that means when a sysop decides it is so, it is so. My nefarious plot is simply to find pages which seem reasonably balanced and factual and if they:
mention something that makes the evolution look true I report it to Conservative so that he can go and trash the page with his creation science [sic] views. mention something that is older that 6000 years I report it to Philip J. Rayment so that he can go and trash the page with his Young Earth Creationist views. don't accept the Bible as reliable historical and scientific source I report it to Karajou so that he can go and trash the page with his literal interpretation of the Bible. present a left-leaning person or organisation as balanced and sane I report it to RobS so that he can go and trash the page with his Mccarthyesque enthusiasm. present homosexuals as balanced and sane I can report it to most any sysop (Ed Poor is the resident expert on the subject -though he may be up to mischief too) so that they can fill it with their homophobic bile. After the above have edited, anyone attempting to return pages to a reasonably balanced and factual state is likely to be blocked by the sysop who has decided to make that particular article their personal blog. TK puts even Uncle Joe to shame with the fervor of his blocks. Many competent editors find themselves "deleted" and lost to the project.
I also categorized a large number of pages so that those in the know could easily find the spoof entries or facts. Have Fun.
Auld Nick
Conservapedia now has a copyright policy. G e o. Talk to me 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The website appears to be presently unavailable - is this a temporary glitch? Jackiespeel 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else encountered difficulties in logging onto Conservapedia as a new user? Alan Liefting 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like there is a lot of potential here Tmtoulouse 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The policing of the site is self-evidently poor - obviously spoof articles about major subjects such as http://www.conservapedia.com/Claude_Debussy have stood uncorrected for nearly a month. I can't think of a way to say this in the article that doesn't sound like OR, though. Kisch 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."
I joined Conservapedia about 3 weeks ago and was "unanimously elected" sysop after 6 days there. Other Wikipedians I've seen helping the project include dpbsmith and interiot.
The project's policies are evolving but are not hostile to liberal content - merely to the expression of liberal canards as fact. With the exception of four dozen protected pages, all articles are open to editing by non-sysops.
Compared to Wikipedia, the project is especially sympathetic to the religious side of the creation-evolution debate. However, saboteurs have entered parody content - apparently with generating 'evidence' of how 'silly' the site is. It's difficult to detect these without becoming "McCarthyist". I suspected "Richard" from the start, but I'm a rather tolerant and easygoing fellow and therefore did not voice my suspicions.
After becoming a sysop, I clamped down hard on incivility - a perennial problem in any on-line project. About half of those I've warned and/or temp-blocked left or got banned. The rest seemed to have decided to buckle down and produce some serious work. It's the same as Wikipedia: if you tolerate nonsense, you get nonsense.
A major difference with Wikipedia not brought out in the present article is its editorial insistence on getting facts right. There is no NPOV at Conservapedia, so an effort to get at the truth is appreciated. (Like Wikipedia, when the truth is not known - at least not agreed upon by contributing editors - both sides of the story are given.) Unlike Wikipedia, when a POV opposite to the Conservative viewpoint is presented, it is permitted to remain in the article - if properly labeled. The classic formula X said Y about Z is (becoming) the norm there.
Less than 48 articles are currently protected. The 'flagship' article Theory of evolution is anti-Materialistic, would would not be permitted at Wikipedia. It highly favors Creationism, too. Several contributors have been clamoring for this article unprotection, but as they have no organized plan and have not submitted useful content nearly all their work has been reverted. I seem to be an exception to this! <grin> I guess my 5 years at Wikipedia, learning how to work collaboratively to craft a sort of 'consensus' on an article, are paying off.
Conservapedia is not the enemy, even though A. Schlafly has fired a few shots across Wikipedia's bow (so to speak). It's a haven for the rejected ideas which NPOV (as interpreted and applied here) chosen to censor. -- Uncle Ed 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There are #numerous# errors and bizarre comments - to take two examples Milton Keynes the place is conflated with John Maynard Keynes at [
[4]] (which refers to the politician Sir Stafford Crisp, while the Huns were "unkind to Christians" at [
[5]].
There is frequent visible bias (as distinct from "the US Conservative viewpoint on xxx is...") - see [ [6]] as an example , and despite the Commandment that references be given most articles do not (calling up 20 entries on the "random article" button produced only four with references). Jackiespeel 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The "ten clicks on the Random Article button" is a good way of testing the sensibility of a Wiki in general. Jackiespeel 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:"A self professed group of "media tarts"[Citation Needed] who claim to promote Animal Rights, Vegetarianism & other dubious causes through the use of controversial propaganda[1][2]& bad science[Citation Needed], and regarded by an increasing number of people of causing animals more harm than good.[Citation Needed]
The introduction still says that Conservapedia has no reuse policy, even though it is covered in the copyright policy. I would fix it myself except for my COI. Also the source for the copyright policy attributes it solely to Andy even though i wrote the framework. G e o. Talk to me 05:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there are enough comments on (a) Conservapedia articles that are amusing for one reason or another, and (b) Stories of becoming editors and having run-ins with those who can be seen as running the show. We can also accept that most Wikis are organic constructs, developing/adapting over time (in response to events, perceptions of them and interactions between them etc), and all will have problems, errors, vandalism and minimalist articles. They also need Unique Selling Points in order to persist.
Conservapedia does have a USP: to present information about the world, taking the stance of a particular variety of American Conservatism, and to promote this viewpoint. It also has a set of operational rules, including the desire to be different from Wikipedia in important respects.
To what extent does it live up to its claims - does it present and/or promote its variety of Conservatism; and does it live up to its rules?
From my observation "a significant proportion" of entries do not have references - far larger than for Wikipedia. Likewise "a significant proportion" of entries have non-trivial errors, which are not corrected (as with the Milton Keynes article mentioned above) - ditto.
Any other comments in this manner - and to what extent will the discussion about Conservapedia contribute to Wikipedia?
Jackiespeel 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain how [ [9]] is "more relevant" than some of the articles complained about by Conservapedia's organisers on Wikipedia - and any comments on the comments made about Wikipedia's use of photographs at [ [10]]? Jackiespeel 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Just looking at the protected articles (because we know they're not the work of vandals) - their problems with bias are an order of magnitude greater than the might-be-bias-if-you-squint-a-bit complaints they have at [11]. They're complaining that the Wiki article on Palestinians has a picture of smiling children on it, and can't see that this [12] might have one or two problems? Kisch 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Assessments are POV, as Wikipedia editors we should not assess and only reflect. παράδοξος 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not Conservapedia has been accused of this, it is ridiculous to claim that it is true. -- CPATS1 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
there are at least three sides to every story: their side, my side, and the truth. παράδοξος 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The article states that it is a criticism that has been leveled against CP, then sources a critic that makes that criticism. The statement then that the site has been criticized for that reason is verified by a reference. Verifiability is one of the major pillars of WP, so there is really not much to debate on this point. Tmtoulouse 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I love this, conservopedia says that Wiki uses English spellings, but, WAIT.STOP.DONT SAY...English is a language that came from ENGLAND, you know, that small island. Funny that. American's have their own small ways of spelling things differently, you use z's and instead of s's in some words for example, colour has no u, they are small things, its how it is. That doesn't bother me, what really annoys me however, is that they claim that a reason NOT to use wiki is that we allow the use of English spellings, well I am f'ing sorry if we use spellings of how the English use words, and England is where the f'ing language came from. Sorry, but does this strike just me, as a little DUMB! Kicken18 10:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not disputing that the policy changed, rather I am disputing the implication that they no longer believe that British Spelling is anti-american. We have plenty of secondary sources with the site founder making that claim. Do you have any sources where he retracts that claim? So far you have only provided sources that the policy changed. Tmtoulouse 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Once can use a primary source to say that CP does not allow coping from WP because it says it right out in plain sight. But a link to the wikipedia page on copying does not mention CP, it requires synthesizing two primary sources and is WP:OR. Tmtoulouse 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Now this respected organisation is presented as anti-American (I presume they are referring to the above - the term International Astronomers Union is used).
See [ [16]]
What is the type of logical fallacy of [ [17]] - a statement that a significant proportion of scientists believe in god (but - which particular relgious belief) linked with creation science? Jackiespeel 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The comment on Pluto (since removed) was to the effect that the demotion was confusing to the American public, and the IAU was somehow anti-American. Jackiespeel 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
At the moment Conservapedia is going through a massive cleansing operation. Almost all contributors not supporting a Youn Earth Creation stance are being eliminated. 75.110.28.205 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no non-YEC purge and you know that. StaticElectric 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
His prediction can be found here
And any comments on the Playboy reference at here
My survey of 20 articles not being talk pages/essays/lists (which form the criteria: 4 stubs (not so named), 6 articles with references of some sort, 1 falling into both (ie 9 articles) - the rest longer and unsourced. There is regular
Wikipedia - 4 stubs, one being unsourced, 5 others without sources/ external links.
Jackiespeel 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think "all the major issues" with Conservapedia have been defined - and as I have said above, it is interesting to compare and contrast, Wikipedia and Conservapedia - and a variety of other Wikis for that matter.
Probably, rather than intermittently highlighting articles we-on-Wikipedia find bizarre, biased or amusing etc, the discussion should be tranferred to the talk page on the List of Wikis - or a list of comments attached to the various entries: unless someone cares to write something for Wikinfo. Otherwise we can be seen as just encouraging them Jackiespeel 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is currently an AFD for Schlafly's article, and some of the votes want to see the material merged here. How do the editors of this article feel about that? Do you think we could support an "about the founder" section? Tmtoulouse 16:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The point of Wikipedia is to give unbiased, neutral information on a topic. This article does that in some ways, but the overall tone of the article seems to be trying to prove a point about the topic, rather than just providing information about it. I understand that this is a controversial subject, but in the interest of keeping this article encylopedic, it should be kept neutral and informational, and all points of view on the controversial subjects should be expressed.
Even if you can find references to back up all of your points about Conservapedia, it still doesn't mean that it's a balanced, neutral article.
I believe this article is simply too controversial and unbalanced to pass a GA nomination. Additionally, the article is not particularly stable and seems to be in the middle of a borderline edit war. These are all requirements of Good Article status. Snottywong 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If you have specific objections then raise them. Vague generalities are unhelpful. JoshuaZ 20:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not it achieves good article status is not that important to me, but I think that the reviewer should have atleast a basic understanding of the materical available for the subject. There is no sources to add the kind of content you bring up. Any source that meets WP:ATT has pretty much nothing positive to say. We have done our best with whats out their to make this as neutral as possible. This "balance" smacks of an undue weight clause almost. Tmtoulouse 03:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the idea that "all points of view on the controversial subjects should be expressed" isn't Wikipedia doctrine, but rather that of the dissident Larry Sanger's competing project. From what I can tell, the official policy of Wikipedia is to spend much effort hashing out a rough consensus on the issue after exploring all the available material and receiving input from a wide variety of divergent viewpoints in an often boisterous and spirited debate, then have an administrator lock the article and transcribe the telepathic commands of the vengeful spirit of Jimbo Wales. SmashTheState 03:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that either WP or Sanger's Citizendium says "all points of view should be expressed" -- WP has its NPOV guidelines, and Citizendium has its "Neutrality" policy which is quite similar. Conservapedia, notably, only says all views should be expressed in order to present, as it does, entries on "Evolutionary Theory" in which the supposed "other point of view," creationism and "intelligent design," is given ten times more space than the scientific view. WP and Citizendium both have plenty of "hashing" among wiki users; Conservapedia instead has "bashing" in which sysops descend, quash dissent, and lock the article so that they themselves can spin it as they like! Rapotter 03:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
absolutely correct. let me mention that these editors have made an honest effort to provide balance. these editors have and are willing to incorporate all pertinent information of encyclopedic value. this article provides fair and citable information about the subject without a POV.
since you have declared this article partial, how can we make it better, specifically?
SmashTheState makes a perfect Wikipedia point, but i know the principal editors strive for better.
παράδοξος
03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
without specific reasons for this article failing to meet the Good Article requirements, i propose resubmitting this article as a Good Article. i want to correct any deficiencies if there are real deficiencies. we've come a long way! παράδοξος 04:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My main point is not that there needs to be more referenced content added from a positive point of view thing is, we'd have to magic that content out of thin air, even the right-wing press thing it's a joke - Neutral content? yes, you have a point, Positive referenced material about CP? About as rare as rocking horse shit. -- Fredrick day 16:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
the main content of this article is relatively stable. the exception is minor vandalism and minor editing attributed to style preferences, grammar, spelling, or reflecting corresponding changes to Conservapedia. some of the content contained in this article is controversial, especially addressing the idealogical conflict between Conservapedia and Wikipedia. in the past two months i've worked on this project, there have been no edit wars and no major content objections. editing and discourse is cordial. article history and talk page archives corroborate. i concur with Fredrick day's, JoshuaZ's, and SmashTheState's assertions. παράδοξος 21:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think most of the issues with Conservapedia have been raised - and adding yet another "look at this" or "attitudes towards contributing editors" comment does not contribute to the argument. It suffers from many of the problems that are likely to affect wikis (short articles, vandalism, multiple editing confusion etc) - and probably the position it takes "encourages" those of a "creative editing persuasion" to do so.
Wikipedia is the best known of the wikis, and so is likely to attract the most attention - good, bad and otherwise. It serves many functions (including providing a home for at least some of the trivia Conservapedia complains about) - and can be improved, like any other source of information.
As Conservapedia has been around for some six months, perhaps a "state of play" review could be justified - to what extent does it live up to the claims it makes about itself?
Jackiespeel 22:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's article does not hold Conservapedia up as the omnipotent source of encyclopedic information. Rightfully so, since no such claim is citeable. Conservapedia is a new website and maturing. Wikipedia's Conservapedia article will also grow with Conservapedia. the content of this article changes as Conservapedia changes. we have limited steadfast content we are able to provide at this early stage of Conservapedia's maturation. always remember, Conservapedia was created as a Wikipedia alternative by the Mr. Shafly. παράδοξος 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC) hagerman bot sux
My point was that six months is a reasonable time for any organic/developing website to establish itself, iron out teething problems etc - and the process should be ongoing.
Also - can people be consistent in spelling Mr S's name. Jackiespeel 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I believe that this entry should be kept short and to the point. Don't feed the beast. Just handle the description of CPedia like you would any other website. Honestly, it's not worth the trouble to do otherwise. CPedia is a Fundamentalist community that should live or die by its own merits. It disappoints me that its opponents have gone to the trouble of vandalizing it with satirical entries and bickering all over the talk pages of its "hot" topics with sarcastic comments. All this drama is, frankly, embarrassing and should be above us. Give them space and let them create their own encyclopedia. It means less Fundamentalist pressure on Wikipedia if they have their own sanctuary. Perhaps it is inaccurate for them to present themselves as conservatives, and perhaps it is unfair for them to label Wikipedia as liberal. But you know what? I don't give a shit and I'm tired of hearing about it. It's a tempest in a teapot. Quit editorializing and masking your opinions with cherry-picked citations. Get above that, and stay there. The readers of this website need calm judgment on our parts, for us to fully provide our service. Personally, I would not shed a fucking tear if the article ended after listing where CPedia differs from Wikipedia, and I don't think the Internet would either. Thank you. Stonedonkey 08:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Those krazee kidz over at CP have changed the logo again. It's similar, but the flag isn't "waving" anymore. If someone fixes this, please feel free (and bound) to completely delete this comment or archive it. Thank you. Huw Powell 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Could the block policy be referenced: [2]?
As of now, I would summarize it as follows:
Conservapedia encourages the sysops to "block early" for obscenity and vandalism. "Silliness or misguided entries or edits" result in editors being warned, although the definitons of "silliness" and "misguided" are not defined. The policy encourages sysops to not block for ideological differences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olin ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
I originally came here in order to indulge in some mischief. Noticing the experiences of others I realised that blatant vandalism or parody wouldn't work and a block would soon follow. Instead I decided to let sysops do the job for me. They being the ultimate source of facts here, see Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks:
Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked. Note: Their (sysops) instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed, that means when a sysop decides it is so, it is so. My nefarious plot is simply to find pages which seem reasonably balanced and factual and if they:
mention something that makes the evolution look true I report it to Conservative so that he can go and trash the page with his creation science [sic] views. mention something that is older that 6000 years I report it to Philip J. Rayment so that he can go and trash the page with his Young Earth Creationist views. don't accept the Bible as reliable historical and scientific source I report it to Karajou so that he can go and trash the page with his literal interpretation of the Bible. present a left-leaning person or organisation as balanced and sane I report it to RobS so that he can go and trash the page with his Mccarthyesque enthusiasm. present homosexuals as balanced and sane I can report it to most any sysop (Ed Poor is the resident expert on the subject -though he may be up to mischief too) so that they can fill it with their homophobic bile. After the above have edited, anyone attempting to return pages to a reasonably balanced and factual state is likely to be blocked by the sysop who has decided to make that particular article their personal blog. TK puts even Uncle Joe to shame with the fervor of his blocks. Many competent editors find themselves "deleted" and lost to the project.
I also categorized a large number of pages so that those in the know could easily find the spoof entries or facts. Have Fun.
Auld Nick
Conservapedia now has a copyright policy. G e o. Talk to me 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The website appears to be presently unavailable - is this a temporary glitch? Jackiespeel 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone else encountered difficulties in logging onto Conservapedia as a new user? Alan Liefting 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like there is a lot of potential here Tmtoulouse 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The policing of the site is self-evidently poor - obviously spoof articles about major subjects such as http://www.conservapedia.com/Claude_Debussy have stood uncorrected for nearly a month. I can't think of a way to say this in the article that doesn't sound like OR, though. Kisch 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."
I joined Conservapedia about 3 weeks ago and was "unanimously elected" sysop after 6 days there. Other Wikipedians I've seen helping the project include dpbsmith and interiot.
The project's policies are evolving but are not hostile to liberal content - merely to the expression of liberal canards as fact. With the exception of four dozen protected pages, all articles are open to editing by non-sysops.
Compared to Wikipedia, the project is especially sympathetic to the religious side of the creation-evolution debate. However, saboteurs have entered parody content - apparently with generating 'evidence' of how 'silly' the site is. It's difficult to detect these without becoming "McCarthyist". I suspected "Richard" from the start, but I'm a rather tolerant and easygoing fellow and therefore did not voice my suspicions.
After becoming a sysop, I clamped down hard on incivility - a perennial problem in any on-line project. About half of those I've warned and/or temp-blocked left or got banned. The rest seemed to have decided to buckle down and produce some serious work. It's the same as Wikipedia: if you tolerate nonsense, you get nonsense.
A major difference with Wikipedia not brought out in the present article is its editorial insistence on getting facts right. There is no NPOV at Conservapedia, so an effort to get at the truth is appreciated. (Like Wikipedia, when the truth is not known - at least not agreed upon by contributing editors - both sides of the story are given.) Unlike Wikipedia, when a POV opposite to the Conservative viewpoint is presented, it is permitted to remain in the article - if properly labeled. The classic formula X said Y about Z is (becoming) the norm there.
Less than 48 articles are currently protected. The 'flagship' article Theory of evolution is anti-Materialistic, would would not be permitted at Wikipedia. It highly favors Creationism, too. Several contributors have been clamoring for this article unprotection, but as they have no organized plan and have not submitted useful content nearly all their work has been reverted. I seem to be an exception to this! <grin> I guess my 5 years at Wikipedia, learning how to work collaboratively to craft a sort of 'consensus' on an article, are paying off.
Conservapedia is not the enemy, even though A. Schlafly has fired a few shots across Wikipedia's bow (so to speak). It's a haven for the rejected ideas which NPOV (as interpreted and applied here) chosen to censor. -- Uncle Ed 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There are #numerous# errors and bizarre comments - to take two examples Milton Keynes the place is conflated with John Maynard Keynes at [
[4]] (which refers to the politician Sir Stafford Crisp, while the Huns were "unkind to Christians" at [
[5]].
There is frequent visible bias (as distinct from "the US Conservative viewpoint on xxx is...") - see [ [6]] as an example , and despite the Commandment that references be given most articles do not (calling up 20 entries on the "random article" button produced only four with references). Jackiespeel 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The "ten clicks on the Random Article button" is a good way of testing the sensibility of a Wiki in general. Jackiespeel 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
:"A self professed group of "media tarts"[Citation Needed] who claim to promote Animal Rights, Vegetarianism & other dubious causes through the use of controversial propaganda[1][2]& bad science[Citation Needed], and regarded by an increasing number of people of causing animals more harm than good.[Citation Needed]
The introduction still says that Conservapedia has no reuse policy, even though it is covered in the copyright policy. I would fix it myself except for my COI. Also the source for the copyright policy attributes it solely to Andy even though i wrote the framework. G e o. Talk to me 05:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think there are enough comments on (a) Conservapedia articles that are amusing for one reason or another, and (b) Stories of becoming editors and having run-ins with those who can be seen as running the show. We can also accept that most Wikis are organic constructs, developing/adapting over time (in response to events, perceptions of them and interactions between them etc), and all will have problems, errors, vandalism and minimalist articles. They also need Unique Selling Points in order to persist.
Conservapedia does have a USP: to present information about the world, taking the stance of a particular variety of American Conservatism, and to promote this viewpoint. It also has a set of operational rules, including the desire to be different from Wikipedia in important respects.
To what extent does it live up to its claims - does it present and/or promote its variety of Conservatism; and does it live up to its rules?
From my observation "a significant proportion" of entries do not have references - far larger than for Wikipedia. Likewise "a significant proportion" of entries have non-trivial errors, which are not corrected (as with the Milton Keynes article mentioned above) - ditto.
Any other comments in this manner - and to what extent will the discussion about Conservapedia contribute to Wikipedia?
Jackiespeel 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain how [ [9]] is "more relevant" than some of the articles complained about by Conservapedia's organisers on Wikipedia - and any comments on the comments made about Wikipedia's use of photographs at [ [10]]? Jackiespeel 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Just looking at the protected articles (because we know they're not the work of vandals) - their problems with bias are an order of magnitude greater than the might-be-bias-if-you-squint-a-bit complaints they have at [11]. They're complaining that the Wiki article on Palestinians has a picture of smiling children on it, and can't see that this [12] might have one or two problems? Kisch 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Assessments are POV, as Wikipedia editors we should not assess and only reflect. παράδοξος 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not Conservapedia has been accused of this, it is ridiculous to claim that it is true. -- CPATS1 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
there are at least three sides to every story: their side, my side, and the truth. παράδοξος 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The article states that it is a criticism that has been leveled against CP, then sources a critic that makes that criticism. The statement then that the site has been criticized for that reason is verified by a reference. Verifiability is one of the major pillars of WP, so there is really not much to debate on this point. Tmtoulouse 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I love this, conservopedia says that Wiki uses English spellings, but, WAIT.STOP.DONT SAY...English is a language that came from ENGLAND, you know, that small island. Funny that. American's have their own small ways of spelling things differently, you use z's and instead of s's in some words for example, colour has no u, they are small things, its how it is. That doesn't bother me, what really annoys me however, is that they claim that a reason NOT to use wiki is that we allow the use of English spellings, well I am f'ing sorry if we use spellings of how the English use words, and England is where the f'ing language came from. Sorry, but does this strike just me, as a little DUMB! Kicken18 10:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not disputing that the policy changed, rather I am disputing the implication that they no longer believe that British Spelling is anti-american. We have plenty of secondary sources with the site founder making that claim. Do you have any sources where he retracts that claim? So far you have only provided sources that the policy changed. Tmtoulouse 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Once can use a primary source to say that CP does not allow coping from WP because it says it right out in plain sight. But a link to the wikipedia page on copying does not mention CP, it requires synthesizing two primary sources and is WP:OR. Tmtoulouse 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Now this respected organisation is presented as anti-American (I presume they are referring to the above - the term International Astronomers Union is used).
See [ [16]]
What is the type of logical fallacy of [ [17]] - a statement that a significant proportion of scientists believe in god (but - which particular relgious belief) linked with creation science? Jackiespeel 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The comment on Pluto (since removed) was to the effect that the demotion was confusing to the American public, and the IAU was somehow anti-American. Jackiespeel 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
At the moment Conservapedia is going through a massive cleansing operation. Almost all contributors not supporting a Youn Earth Creation stance are being eliminated. 75.110.28.205 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no non-YEC purge and you know that. StaticElectric 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
His prediction can be found here
And any comments on the Playboy reference at here
My survey of 20 articles not being talk pages/essays/lists (which form the criteria: 4 stubs (not so named), 6 articles with references of some sort, 1 falling into both (ie 9 articles) - the rest longer and unsourced. There is regular
Wikipedia - 4 stubs, one being unsourced, 5 others without sources/ external links.
Jackiespeel 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think "all the major issues" with Conservapedia have been defined - and as I have said above, it is interesting to compare and contrast, Wikipedia and Conservapedia - and a variety of other Wikis for that matter.
Probably, rather than intermittently highlighting articles we-on-Wikipedia find bizarre, biased or amusing etc, the discussion should be tranferred to the talk page on the List of Wikis - or a list of comments attached to the various entries: unless someone cares to write something for Wikinfo. Otherwise we can be seen as just encouraging them Jackiespeel 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is currently an AFD for Schlafly's article, and some of the votes want to see the material merged here. How do the editors of this article feel about that? Do you think we could support an "about the founder" section? Tmtoulouse 16:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)