Talk:Conservapedia

This page is to discuss improvement of this Wikipedia article only.

For complaints or questions about Conservapedia, please go Conservapedia's external website:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page.

Why is Everyone Wiggin about Conservapedia?

Conservapedia is just that, conservative. Remember NPOV. Wikipedia is a different animal. Think of Wikipedia as the NPOV perspective -- you'll have no troubles. Paradoxos 06:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I want Conservapedia to do well. I want, very badly, for there to be a functioning viable active Conservapedia to which Wikipedia can be compared. And then we'll see what makes for a better encyclopedia... one which stifles content, debate, facts and opinions which oppose an ideology, or one which welcomes the debate. Mykll42 07:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia emulates Wikipedia website graphics and layout closely, leading to confusion. The first time I visited Conservapedia I thought I was at Wikipedia. Paradoxos 10:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm less interested in it than I used to be. Conservapedia seemed to me to have a triple identity:

• Written by (Christian homeschooled) teenagers as a "learn-by-doing" way to learn school subjects
• Written for (Christian homeschooled) high-school-age students as a learning resource, and therefore written at a more elementary level, and with appropriate content for the audience
• Conservative alternative to Wikipedia.

Conservapedia didn't even make a start at realizing the first two missions before the bloggers and the press discovered it.

Now, I think the world could really use a "high-school age" counterpart to Wikipedia; something that would be to Wikipedia as World Book is to Britannica. That somehow requires an exercise of authority regarding tone, level, and content. I don't know how you could do it, and I don't think you could do it in an open-Wiki-based environment like Wikipedia... or even a not-so-open Wiki-based environment like Conservapedia.

But that's probably academic, as I don't think that's where Conservapedia is headed. Today, Conservapedia seems to be dominated by editors who give me the impression of having broadly the same composition as Wikipedia. There's no way to know for sure, but I imagine: young adult males; nerdish; intense; argumentative; pugnacious; and with social skills varying from passable to poor. Unfortunately, a difference between the two environments is that the very premise of Conservapedia attracts POV warriors.

Some seem to have had difficulty at Wikipedia and think slanted material will be OK at Conservapedia as long as the slant is "conservative." Unfortunately, this is only partially true, so they are still faced with the social problems of interacting with people who do not agree with them about what should be in an article. To the extent that their problems at Wikipedia involved not their point of view per se, but their difficulty in dealing with those with other points of view, they encounter the same problems at Wikipedia. It's just like Carl Sandburg's poem in The People, Yes:

Drove up a newcomer in a covered wagon: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.' And the dusty gray stranger had just about blended into the dusty gray cottonwoods in a clump on the horizon when another newcomer drove up: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.'"

Of course, it doesn't help that there's a fairly constant pressure of what might be called "parody vandalism," people who think Conservapedia is funny and insert over-the-top material mocking Fundys. (There's also been a certain amount of... I'd call it subtle vandalism, except "subtle" does it too much justice... freshly created articles about Bach that start by giving accurate dates and ease into saying that he composed the Diabelli Variations, and that the title of his anthology, "Bach's Great Organ Works," was suggested by Anna Magdalena after the birth of his umpteenth child...)

I'm guessing that there are probably people who see Wikipedia as a factual encyclopedia that gives too much space and credence to... um... a mainstream or liberal world-view, and only grudgingly and poorly to the... um... Schlafly world-view. And that they would like to have an encyclopedia that is, broadly, as reliable as Wikipedia, but remoulded to their heart's desire, in which uncontroversial facts would be dealt with as well as Wikipedia, but topics like evolution would have a different balance and emphasis from Wikipedia's.

I have no idea whether this is possible or how anyone would go about doing it. Conservapedia seems to think they can do this by controlling who is permitted to edit Conservapedia, but I don't think it's working. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually very rapidly becoming Schlaflypedia. His is really the only POV that matters over there. I'm going to continue to keep an eye on the project but I can't see myself contributing over there any more. Mykll42 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia the Wikipedia alternative? I don't think so. From my perspective, Conservapedia compliments Wikipedia, whereas from the creationist/conservative perspective Wikipedia directly competes with Conservapedia. Paradoxos 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Help me. I want to organize this page by combining similar topics and forking on new pages as necessary. Is it prudent? Can I do it? Should I do it? Any recommendation how how to proceed if I should do it? Thank you!! Paradoxos 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Before merging similar topics and pages, you should reach a consensus (i.e. take a vote) among the users who visit/improve this article. Real96 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you kindly! Paradoxos 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to review this page: WP:REFACTOR. I think it might be a good idea to at least group similar comments. --♣Transfinite(Talk) 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that conservapedia is ultimately a paradox. While its initial argument, that wikipedia holds a bias in some of its articles, might be true to some extent their entire encyclopedia is fundamentally bias as it advocates a conservative point of view. furthermore, while wikipedia allows for articles that are presumed to be bias to be changed, conservapedia does not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.128.72.19 (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Is this a really real thing?

I was just wondering, is Conservapedia a real thing or it just very clever satire? It's just that an awful lot of it is pretty dim and the rest is plain silly, so I was just wondering... Possecomitatus 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Playing devil's advocate by baiting without disclosure is dishonest and would be a diservice. Best I can tell, Mr. Andrew Schlafly is of the conservative philosophy and there are many people who see the world through the conservative lens. As an undergraduate, I had the pleasure of having an evolutionary biology professor who was also a Presbyterian deacon. The professor was brilliant, well versed in biology, and well versed in Christian teachings. The professor traveled to debate creationists. He invited a creationist into our evolutionary biology class. Creationists truly believe in what they say, even though it contradicts others observations. Paradoxos 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a committed Christian believer, I am frankly quite embarrassed by conservapedia. (I learnt about it today from an interview with Jimmy Wales in Time magazine.) It's a sad day when Christians think that the only legitimate "truth" is truth that is censored through an ultra-fundamentalist filter. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians (outside America, that is) aren't creationists or fundamentalists. The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury have spoken against creationism, and they are the leaders of 2 of the world's biggest churches. Hooray for Wikipedia and NPOV! Tonicthebrown 05:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia needs time to become a good source. In time it will be a viable and useful tool. But without more editors, I don't know how long that will take. They need to start accepting new accounts. Jtpaladin 15:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it will ever become a "viable and useful" tool - all of the articles are forced to conform to a creationist stance rendering most of them nonsense - coupled with numerous copyvios, the fact that admins own multiple article and refuse input from others also means that many will never improve. I suspect once people get bored of adding nonsense to it/trying to inject reality into it - it will fall to pieces. --Fredrick day 16:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

more critisism: anti-sexuality and zero-tolerance admins

Perhaps something should be added about the "sex is not family-friendly" policy Conservapeida seems to have. I will try to avoid this debate on Wikipedia since I intend to start a debate about this elsewhere.

Interesting input could be: [1] an edit in Conservapedia I was banned for since I did not obey the third commandment: "edits must be family friendly" also see [2] for the infinite ban I got.

If this is a bad idea please let me know or just ignore this post. // PER9000 15:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A topic I might suggest some follow-up on is conservapedia's tactic of blocking users "for infinity" (plus two, I assume) for so much as copying from Wikipedia. I have now been blocked for infinity because I added material about dolphins and facts, naively assuming someone would edit the information as they saw fit. I'm just whining a little, but that site is a mess. Menkatopia 16:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am about to write a cynical comment about the two dolphins on Noah's Ark, but I will try to avoid that. This is not the place to debate about evolution/creationsim/etc.

BUT I intend to debate about this in my Blog :-D // PER9000 17:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with a lot of this stuff is WP:OR. We might have to wait until some independent newspaper or magazine (or non-blog website) decides to write up these Conservapedia policies. JamesMLane t c 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Commandments

Could we include the Conservapedia Commandments? http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Conservapedia_Commandments Menkatopia 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be appropriate.Mykll42 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Got too far ahead of myself an messed-up something. I'm gonna take a little break in the sandbox. Sorry for the inconvenince. Please don't block me for "infinity" Menkatopia 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to put in the commandments from their site, but not sure what happened. I did see that another editor removed the "strange edits." how would I go about replacing them, or did they get moved to another place? Menkatopia 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Commandments were incorporated into the article verbatum, today. paradoxos 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes Made Under Conservapedia and Wikipedia Heading

Reworded the first paragraph under this section, and made it more neutral. Personally conducted a comparative morphometric study on two isolated Cercopithecus mona populations, and believe evolution is a natural process. Anyway, the changes make the paragraph more neutral. KEEP HagermanBot off of my Talk Page edits }}User:Paradoxos|Paradoxos{{ 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted change: ",however,". Using "whereas" prefaces the idea that follows as being equally important to the idea in the preceding sentence assuring NPOV. Paradoxos 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC) KEEP the HagerManBot off my Talk Page Comments Paradoxos 22:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes Made March 22, 2007 and Justifications

• Changed Conservapedia and Wikipedia Heading to Conservapedia: A Wikipedia Alternative. To non-creationists, "Conservapedia: A Wikipedia Alternative" is a misnomer, but creationists see the world differently. NO NO NO, I do not believe in UFOs!

• Added subheadings "Editorial Philosophies" and "Editorial Priveleges". Breaks content under the section nicely.

• Revised content under "Editorial Philosophies"
  • Reworded sentences to make the section Conservapedia-centric. This is an article about Conservapedia and not about Wikipedia. To maintain NPOV for the article, Wikipedia is dependent.
  • Strengthened "Editorial Philosophies" section by adding Conservapedia Commandments and contrasting with Wikipedias Core Content Policies.

NPOV is a challenge while editing this controversial article. Truthiness (Stephen Colbert: 2005) paradoxos 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

London Metro Newspaper

Conservapedia appeared in todays free newspaper Metro. The article was on page 3 of the newspaper and ridiculed Conservapedias biased information, was rather amusing actually. Dont know if its worth mentioning in the article.

Liberal 'pedias

Is it worth mentioning that there are various liberal equivalents of Conservapedia? [3] [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harksaw (talk • contribs) 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Not unless some reliable source mentions this Nil Einne 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That is unnecessary. Per WP:RS, descriptive claims can be made about primary sources. Harksaw 13:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning them in conservapedia however still requires a secondary source Nil Einne 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone seriously make a liberalpedia. PLEASE!!!

Creationism

The "science" on the site is clearly creationist in nature - but can any found a good source talking about that aspect of the site? --Fredrick day 09:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Conservative"

I know the word "conservative" has been co-opted by people who share the conservapedia mentality, but must wikipedia go along with it by calling it a "conservative wiki"? As a baby-boomer, I can remember when "conservative" didn't mean Christian fundamentalist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.158.86 (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

It's how they describe themselves. According to Andrew Schlafly, "As an aside, I am curious about Murray's claim that 'one can be a conservative and still believe that the theory of evolution is correct.' Do you have some specific examples to support that claim? I have found nearly a 100% correlation between belief in evolution and opposition to classroom prayer, for example. But I'm open to any evidence you might have. Thanks." - from [5] Mykll42 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In which case we should go out of our way to point out that this is their own interpretation of Conservative. Especially given that the word means so many different things across the English-speaking world - this site really has nothing to do with Ted Heath! Kisch 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Currently Conservapedia is quite anti-Semitic. Their "Judaism" article claims Jews are demonic, and descended from Satan through Eve and Cain. For a while, it instead claimed Jews believed in Jesus though not as the Messiah. Now however, it is trying a different tack. This demonstrable anti-Semitism, seemingly ripped strait out of those New Israelite websites, even more than the anti-Evolutionary arguments, shows how inaccurate and biased Conservapedia really is. Hopefully, even someone who believes in Conservapedia's Christian missions, will not buy the anti-Semitism.

Incidentally they are not to kind to Muslims either, though they don't claim Muslims are evil incarnate. Wikipedia's article is clearly, and by far, fairer and less POV,

Can someone incorporate this in the article.—70.111.0.17 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia does not have a anti-semitic bias. You are probably seeing vandalism. Geo. Talk to me 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced of that - it's creationist hive (besides being well.. full of nutters) and those places are almost always anti-semitic in nature - having said that, we don't have WP:ATT sources to point towards to put such a claim in the article. --Fredrick day 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We have been having a rash of anti-semitic vandalism on Conservapedia. This looks like something we did not get to. Geo. Talk to me 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

From Islam page "There is some evidence that some traditional Muslim scholars have been suppressing this information as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice, which was also a part of early Judaism." You do cite a source here, but surely such a controversial claim that would seem to slander two religions deserves elaboration, especially in light of the fact that the current religious texts don't seem to condone human sacrifice. What are these scrolls you speak of?-128.6.83.120 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they removed the inflammatory stuff yesterday. paradoxos 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to have an article Jews Did WTC, ha ha. 142.151.175.39 02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, they do have an article (Jews did wtc) which redirects to 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Hojimachong^talk 02:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Seem to still have plenty of nasty stuff in it about Jewish people. --Fredrick day 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Logo

I seperated the alpha channel (the transparency information) on the logo image using ImageMagick, and found a hidden message. I uploaded the image with just the alpha channel here:File:Conservalpha.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). (Note: Black is opaque, white is transparent) Because Internet Explorer version 6 has lousy PNG transparency handling, you can see the hidden message in that browser. The image on main page seems to match the one User:User:BillOReillyFan uploaded and linked on this page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Logo. I have verified that they both have the hidden message in the alpha channel. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: Should this information be added to the article? Or is it original research? --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What made you happen to think of trying that? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One doesn't actually have to separate out the alpha channel to know that something's up; when I opened it up in Irfanview, parts of the message were visible immediately. Tsumetai 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw the hidden message in Internet Explorer 6. It doesn't handle PNG transparency correctly, so you can actually faintly make out the message. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

T'is good information! But, as an inexperienced Wikipedia editor, I would consider it original research. Do you think another reputable forum would publish your findings? Paradoxos 23:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That is FUNNY really brings home the whole "laughingstock" status of the site. Tmtoulouse 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The uploads are available. The procedure that User:Transfinite used can be applied to any of them. Start from the image known to contain profanity. Then examine the first upload. The jump 1/2 way inbetween. Soon the first profanity will appear. That uploader should be blocked for vandalism. That it is clever vandalism does not excuse vandalism. 208.106.20.67 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want a real laugh, open the logo file in notepad and scroll to the bottom. Does anybody know if the guy who gave them the logo is responsible for this, or if it was an incident of hacking? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.225.125 (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Oh, and I think WP:OR until we get a reputable source. mattbuck 09:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

"If you want a real laugh, open the logo file in notepad and scroll to the bottom" Yes it gave me a real laff, thanks!  :-) Looks like they have changed their logo. Mr Christopher 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it just exudes professionalism, doesn't it? I guess I should confess, twas I who made the logo and hid all the messages in it. I've been working hard on undermining Conservapedia, 'cause I find it repugnant. If you want some more laughs, investigate the following pages:

Newt Gingrich (check his lapel)

It's a .jpg, no alpha channel. Nothing obvious to me in the lapel. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Flagellum

Conservapedia does not have an article on "flagellum" and the related articles do not have pictures. There's nothing in the History file to suggest a picture has ever been removed. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles's since been removed. [6] Though that one didn't have a picture, it was just humorous text. 212.159.16.171 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld (Open the image in something that'll show you all the GIF animation frames)

Well, that looked promising since the article was created by User:BillOReillyFan, with an image in its initial creation, and the article content itself is very short. However, the image just shows a question-mark placeholder. I see no evidence at all of a picture's having been detected or deleted, so I think it's a faulty upload. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly (Check inside the file, it has instructions for revealing the hidden message. You might have to rename the image to a .RAR file and open it in WinRAR. I did that to a few files)

US Supreme Court (Look at the quote above the atrium, and inside the file too)

Heavy Metal (Look inside the image file, at the bottom)

These are just a few I can remember. I encourage everyone here to work hard to ensure Conservapedia isn't allowed to become a recognized resource. I'm more than tired of the religious right trying to undermine my children's education, and I'm sure many of you are too. No doubt because of this, most of these acts of vandalism will be removed soon. Small price to pay if it gets more people actively protesting this abomination of a website. --12.218.225.125 22:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But, in any care, regardless of whether these examples are real or just trying (successfully) to get people to waste time, the basic philosophical question is this: if someone carves his initials on a tree in a forest in a remote location where nobody will ever see it, it is really graffiti? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ha ha, I've been doing the same thing on Wikipedia, we are buddies. 142.151.175.39 06:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Divert your efforts towards conservapedia. They're the ones who deserve it. --12.218.225.125 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

naw, Daniel Brandt agrees, Wikipedia is a monstrosity. 142.151.175.39 06:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia and Conservapedia can sustain almost unlimited amounts of invisible vandalism without great harm to either of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly and her followers are paleoconservative, not neoconservative. Andjam 21:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The entire point of this section has completely strayed off course.

2. Regardless, the "alpha channel" image this section is based on is either doctored or outdated. A few minutes before writing this, I saved the current version of the logo. This is the alpha channel of the logo as viewed in GIMPShop a few minutes before this was written. File:ConservlogoAlpha.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Slavik262 02:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It became outdated. In fact, any "quote" from the site that does not include a version ref is liable to be inaccurate at any time - just like here on WP. If a list of criticisms of WP consisted solely of vandalism (much like the BJAODN archives), it would be very long. However, most of it does not survive long. This makes writing an article like this difficult - I think it should be shorter, more concise, but that's my opinion. Another opinion I hold (as of this writing...) is that this talk page is a disaster in need of organizing and archiving. Much of the commentary is barely, if at all, even about the article. Huw Powell 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly and Conservapedia's origins

http://www.conservapedia.com/Andrew_Schlafly makes a pretty clear assertion that "Conservapedia developed as a result of his World History course. Andy Schlafly and several of his top students continue to lead the project, and most of his students have contributed entries to it." Recent edits tried to claim that the site was created, not by Schlafly, but by his students, which isn't really the same. We should, perhaps clarify the idea of "initiator" vs. "initial content editor." Schlafly is pretty clearly the former, where he and his students are collectively the latter. -Harmil 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that my edits to this effect have been reverted, but without any commentary, here... huh. -Harmil 21:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about Conservapedia

To what extent does it display solipsism?

I have noticed an assortment of typos, and what appear to be little better than dic-defs, possibly written by "persons in the younger age groups of Teen Eagles." Jackiespeel 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought they were Christians and Christians arent solips (sic). All open source info suffers from youth-vcentrism. the middle aged are too busy and the old lack the computer skills giving space to the young that they wont be giving to the next generation, SqueakBox 21:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant in the sense of the 'pedia' as a whole (not the individuals per se)- or perhaps self-referential? Jackiespeel 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Split Current and Archived Discussion Pages

It is very difficult to navigate and research what everyone is saying. There are a lot of great comments on this page. This discussion page has the current and an archived. Propose to:

• combine related topics from both the current and archived page and split. comments may belong under multiple topics.
• create a table on this main page that includes links to the split topics and their summaries
• archive current contents of this page

paradoxos 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Man, this page is getting long! Table example: Talk:Conservapedia/Editing Changes Hope it is useful helping us edit. paradoxos 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Logo change

Conservapedia has changed their logo. I will delete the logo we have up there now, but I don't trust myself to go uploading images at this point. If someone else could do it... you know... sweet.Mykll42 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Got it uploaded and linked on the page. I might have to check this one for hidden messages too... --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

NPR interview

I added some of the noteworthy quotes from the NPR interview to the article. First time I have heard Schlafly, I was expecting a least a little bit of a demonic hiss, but no he just sounds like a total geek. I got to say that my experience with Conservapedia pretty much confirmed all the negative and stereotypical views I had going into the project. I was sort of hoping I might be convinced otherwise, but it as much a cesspool of hypocrisy and anti-intellectualism as most of us thought. Tmtoulouse 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting interview -- Robert Seigel was more than kind. I rather thought Schlafly sounded like he was using a vocoder -- almost a synthetic voice sort of sound, and very gluey. But back to the article here in WP; I think there are things (to which you allude) which should be mentioned in more detail: 1) Ideological soulmates -- some of them, I rather suspect, homeschooled teenagers -- are made into SYSOPS as a reward for their fidelity, and then go about editing as they please, locking as they please, and even (most recently) insulting and being threatening to other, more moderate SYSOPS who dare to challenge their edits; and 2) Locking articles with the deliberate plan that only SYSOPS shall edit them, often with a single SYSOP assigned by Schlafly to a given entry. They can call it what they like, but it seems to me to be an abuse of the wiki software, and quite possibly not really a wiki at all in the original sense of collective editing. Rapotter 20:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, they have never claimed it was. It's pretty clear that Schlafly isn't particularly familiar with, or interested in, Wikipedia's internal culture, or Wiki concepts. By using MediaWiki (and choosing the same default skin), he has laid himself open to frequent misunderstandings, which he doesn't seem to have any particular interest in correcting.

Many visitors assume, for example, the Conservapedia is GFDL-licensed. Not only is it not GFDL licensed, but so far there's no formal statement of copyright or re-use policy; Schlafly makes occasion remarks that make it clear that he'd like to allow Conservapedia content to be re-used, but only in a way that is friendly to Conservapedia and concordant with its goals. Of course, it is hard to formulate this as a legally-enforceable policy, so... there is none.

Some other differences: when Conservapedia sysops block, they have a penchant for extraordinarily long block times. I don't think they've thought much about how to decide what an appropriate time is, or what the purpose is (usually: behavior modification). (Ed Poor recently set a good example by blocking someone for eight minutes).

Aschafly has commented that "It seems to me that Sysops should be like the royal guards or Secret Service." Quite a difference from "no big deal" or "janitor!" However, he goes on to say "Promotion should be based on competence, commitment, shrewd and fair blocking, and a good work ethic. The rules set the policy, and the students set the rules. Lots of good entries by an editor are the best indicator of who would make a good Sysop. Several of the best Sysops probably disagree with me about ideology. So do some of my students. Conservapedia is really based on confidence that good rules will result in a superior product, and I do think our rules are much better than Wikipedia's." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservative vs Creationist

Conservatives are not necessarily Creationists. There are conservatives and liberals that believe evolution is a biological process. There are other conservatives and liberals that believe in evolution and also believe all living organisms were created by god, but not in the way the bible states. Conservapedia's articles reflect Creationist views by excluding evolution as a biological process and geological interpretations of the earths age as being billions of years old. Creationists do not believe in evolution, but believe god created the earth 6,000 years ago and all living were created in their present forms. Inserting Conservapedia's article content reflects Creationist views in the first paragraph is appropriate.

First paragraph might read something like this:
Conservapedia (Website launched November 2006)is a wiki free online encyclopedia project with Creationist viewpoints. Articles are self reported as pro-U.S., socially conservative and supportive of conservative Christianity.[2][3][4] παράδοξος 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia's self description as conservative is arguably a misnomer. Conservapedia's viewpoints are not conservative, instead are Creationist and likely revisionist. Conservapedia's editorial philosophy contradicts OrthodoxWiki's Policies, slightly resembles Theopedia's Policies and most closely resembles CreationWiki's Policies. My interpretations presented here are not attributable. παράδοξος 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia on Conservapedia

Anyone care to comment on the Uncyclopedia article? (here[[7]])? Jackiespeel 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Free" online encyclopedia?

Free as in beer, certainly... but as I write this, the word "free" does not appear on the main page. It certainly does not license its work under the GFDL, Creative Commons, or other "free" licenses. Aschlafly has said that he does not object to re-use as long as the re-use does not harm Conservapedia, but has not formalized this. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The copyright policy is being worked on here. Geo. Talk to me 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This page also has the rather vague We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. --Fredrick day 07:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Do we need to make it clearer in the article that Conservapedia thinks that Original research is ok and that is another difference from Wikipedia? --Fredrick day 07:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia explicitly articulated original research is ok as article content? to me, it looks like Conservapedia has introduced personal interpretations in articles' content, but i have not personally seen it explicitly stated on the website. if you find it, then its worthy of being succinctly addressed in the intro and developed further in the body! παράδοξος 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can say that. Their rule 6 is: "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages." However this rule is ignored on the majority of their pages.--Laukiz (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. and then you can find the site owner saying on the talkpage of that page Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world. --Fredrick day 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

just saw that and was coming back to place the url (http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia). παράδοξος 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just noticed that myself, and was coming back to mention it. Would seem to be a contradiction wouldn't it?--Laukiz (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Example of original research --Fredrick day 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Infidels

I like the very factual nature on the article on Infidels ... maybe it could be used somehow ? B00red

Are you kidding? Migdejong 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

been a card carrying Internet Infidel aka freethinker since '97. παράδοξος 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

""woooooooshh" hear that ? The sound of sarcasm flying right over Migdejongs head :P ... Damn it we have one of them amongst us, someone changed the Infidels "article" B00red

We have many amongst us. For an organization that despises all that wikipedia stands for, they have an unhealthy obsession with us. To be fair, I have an unhealthy obession with them. Mykll42 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Further comments on Conservapedia

I think there are several issues here:

Conservapedia exists, so has to be described - including the rules on which it is based (political position, method of editing etc), even if most of us are not allowed to change it. This would apply even if Conservapedia were to close down/transform itself into something else/otherwise cease to exist in the present form.

There are "a large number" of errors in both Wikipedia and Conservapedia - which range from "fingers in a twist"/writing in a hurry, to more significant problems, much of which should be resolved in time. There will also be a certain amount of vandalism in both Wickipedia and Conservapedia, which will tend to affect certain areas more than others.

Are there enough religious/political alternatives to Wikipedia (including the RC and Eastern Orthodox versions) to do a "compare and contrast" discussion?

Perhaps we should let Conservapedia develop a bit before pointing out various articles that we find amusing. Jackiespeel 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

comparing and contrasting Wikipedia alternatives is probably beyond the scope of this article and would require a new article. i think its a good idea.

i do not think it is Wikipedia editors' duty to point out amusing articles or to defend Wikipedia based on What Wikipedia is not. Conservapedia states a need for a Wikipedia alternative (http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia). to me, the encyclopedic value is the elements that makes Conservapedia the forum it is.

παράδοξος 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

i see there are a bazillion different wikis (List of wikis), i did not know this before now -- don't hate me 'cause i'm a newbie!

• encyclopedia and information center for Orthodox Christianity
  
• Encyclopedia of Creation Science Science in this case is certainly a misnomer.
  
• an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity
  

in retrospect, the heading Conservapedia: A Wikipedia Alternative should probably be broadened and additional information added. Maybe Conservapedia: A Wiki Political or religious doctrine-based Alternative and then have Wikipedia as a subheading. παράδοξος 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The "compare and contrast" article would be a different article - probably connected to the "List of Wikis". Jackiespeel 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

there's nothing of encyclopedic value on the Conservapedia website about the other wiki projects, i checked. παράδοξος 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The article in question would be within Wikipedia itself - and slightly more than "this group of wikis deal with computer technology" and "this group present the views of various cultural groups" (there would probably be very little cross discusion between these two groups) - eg the different policies on article construction etc. I was making a suggestion as others may be able to provide the necessary detail. Jackiespeel 13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia does have a page on Uncyclopedia - but does not state that "many" Uncyclopedia articles would be unsuitable for Conservapedia (g). Jackiespeel 15:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution Group.

I see they have a new conflict resolution group at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Panel

It is described below: The Conservapedia Panel is Conservapedia's conflict resolution group. It is designed to resolve major conflicts that come up on the site. We do not censor in any way. Who is it?

The members of this group are made up of college bound students from the original 58 homeschooled students that started this site. The members remain Anonymous. --Laukiz (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this sums it up nicely - I almost forgot about that... so "58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students" now get to dictate what we should write and what we shouldn't write? And the result is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"? Oh boy. At least put that into the rules: "Conservapedia might look like a wiki, but you may only write what the Panel approves of.". Put it right under "Conservapedia officially supports Young Earth Creationism as Truth". -http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Theory_of_evolution#WAIT

Leaving aside that the site has now gone lightyears past any attempts at parody - how do we work this into the article? --Fredrick day 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In the introduction where the home schoolers are initially mentioned I'd say. If it's not too much like original research. But presumably we can quote them as a reference to themselves? Or is it not a reliable reference? :-)--Laukiz (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

These people are paranoid and don't understand Wiki fucntions

They won't let an IP edit a page at all... all anonymous IPs are block. Yet they told me to talk for my IP... and [8]

Also... accounts cannot be created during UnAmerican hours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Given the anonymity of the panel, we actually only have one source that such a panel exists. I don't think we can say the panel exists as independent confirmation is impossible. Mykll42 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Name and shame policy

Check out the current frontpage - Think our schools are doing a good job today? Read this racist contribution to Conservapedia from an internet address at Brown University, an elite, liberal college. --Fredrick day 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis and Clark Article παράδοξος 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, and had to take an "Oh, wow." moment, and pick my jaw up off the floor. I wonder if they realize they gave the troll exactly what he wanted. Back on the subject, it could be worked into a section on Conservapedia's reaction to vandalism, along with "We will send you to Federal Prison for vandalizing our wiki." --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to make a note of the liberal watchlist as well. http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List

It's moderated by a SYSOP who claims that he's a follower of McCarthy (sriously)--Laukiz (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the presence of no less than four other sysops on that list. Tsumetai 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Really. Hadn't noticed that. What I do note are some of the most effective contributors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laukiz (talk • contribs) 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Amazing Mr Christopher 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Turns out that the liberal list was the work of a parodist. Tsumetai 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And Wiki Maintains there is no bias here

If this site were truly NPOV, sites like Conservapedia wouldn't exist. But as long as you all <negative comment redacted> post whatever tripe they wish, Wikipedia will remain completely, 100% useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.145.177.110 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribute, please. --Iamunknown 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, the existence of a flat earth wiki-based encyclopedia (for example) would also demonstrate that Wikipedia is not neutral. —Ben FrantzDale 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

I've had a look at Conservapedia, and as near as I can tell, almost every article is a stub. There are few attributions, and even the few articles of any length are clearly not encyclopedic (eg/ the entry on "punk" is a long article about "christian punk" with no mention of anything else). The Wikipedia entry about Anarchopedia was deleted and salted to keep it from ever being recreated. A cynical man might wonder why Anarchopedia was banished for being "unencyclopedic" while Conservapedia gets a nice long article here and conclude that it might have something to do with the political leanings of King Jimmy and his court nobles. SmashTheState 20:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

or the fact that Conservapedia has been covered by multiple major news sources and therefore is a legitimate area for an article - it was actually deleted first time around and was resorted when it become a bit bigger. As far as I can see Anarchopedia has not had that level of coverage. But hey easier just to take a cheap swipe than do a little investigation! --Fredrick day 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the "quality" or length of conservapedia articles is not what makes it noteworthy. Who founded it, what their ambition is and how they are going about it is what drew national media attention. Well and some of the kookier articles I suppose (the picture of jesus holding a dinosaur was pretty amusing). I'll agree that there is nothing encyclopedic at Conservapedia but that is not their goal. Think of it as organized christian propaganda. Mr Christopher 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, per google, there are hundreds of news articles about conservapedia by major and minor news soruces. There are zero about Anarchopedia. Looks like it's not just Wiki who doesn't find Anarchopedia compelling or worth mentioning, so the conspiracy you hint at is much more broad than King Jimmy et al. Mr Christopher 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the person starting this discussion could do a bit more to promote Anarchopedia? Jackiespeel 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal questions

Shall we say that Conservapedia is interesting as a Wiki constructed according to certain rules that differ to those used by Wikipedia - and that the typos are merely teething problems. As Wikipedia is constructed by persons from many countries, groupings (social, political, ethical etc) and areas of knowledge,

"Many" Wikipedia biographical entries are likely to show incompleteness. Some will show misinterpretation/misunderstanding, POV problems, "creative or accidental mis-editing" and occasionally there will be "evidence of malice aforethought." All these can be readily corrected by Wikipedia editors - seemingly, in most cases, without causing too much offence to the subject (if they become aware of the problem).

Conservapedia appears to be under somewhat tighter administrative control than Wikipedia, and adopts a particular theological/political/ideological stance. From comments made, those involved are prepared to enter the legal domain to take action against persons causing problems.

Is Conservapedia a "legal person" capable of taking such action?

What happens if someone of a different political, theological or ideological position takes offence with the article written about them? (Going beyond the "this is the official stance of group x on the subject" - #objectively# one can see why certain topics will be interpreted differently by particular defined groups.)

The first question could be applied to other wikis: the second, with some rephrasing as necessary likewise.

Jackiespeel 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

i see where you are going in the first paragraph, and agree. i don't understand how the second paragraph applies to the Conservapedia article -- please elaborate.

Conservapedia is attempting to be the ultimate source of the Absolute Truth where Wikipedia is a single information source of many, at least that's my interpretation. shafly is unable or unwilling to see the world through other's eyes based on their beliefs and experiences with his interpretations being the only Right interpretation.

from what i understand, shafly is trained as a lawyer -- whether he practices law is beyond me.

παράδοξος 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Shafly has stated he will take action against anyone "causing problems" to Conservapedia, and has an overview over that wiki.

Conservapedia adopts a position on certain persons which might cause offence to those persons. If one of those persons took offence with what was said about them (as distinct from "the Conservapedia/anarchist/Communist/etc viewpoint on X's actions is...") what redress could be taken against Shafly? If someone does a complete spoof/total hatchet job against Conservapedia, what action could be taken by the Shafly etc.

There are probably some interesting legal discussions on the topic - (which could be extended to other Wikis) - beyond the legal knowledge of most people on Wikipedia (and OR to boot). Jackiespeel 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening page states that you can trust Conservapedia - but can anyone explain [[9]]? Jackiespeel 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Too funny. Here is one thing we can all agree on, conservapedia has some very funny vandalism. Some of the articles are so absurd you're not sure whether they're an example of a spoofed article or just Schlafly's opinion. Mr Christopher 22:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia is the ultimate Truth authority with articles being gospel, HALLELUJAH!! yeah, right

there will always be significant segments of populations that follow Conservapedia's and parallel philosophies.

παράδοξος 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Another point: twice now when I have been clicking on the "random article" button I have come across "non-child friendly" articles: would this happen on Wikipedia (if not, this would be part of the compare and contrast article)? Jackiespeel 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Article coming along

this article is coming along nicely, despite diametrically opposing ideologies. the article is far from finished, but significant progress is being made. when i first started editing this article, my first real editing project on Wikipedia, there were a lot of obvious anti-Conservapedia POVs on the article. as an article contributor, i see my contribution as teaching Wikipedia users about Conservapedia -- it does not matter whether I feel Conservapedia content is Right or Wrong. i would disservice Wikipedia users if i edited Wikipedia's content in a biased way, advocating a viewpoint is better or worse, right or wrong -- i present arguments and let users make decisions.

παράδοξος 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the disclaimer tag

I've removed the disclaimer tag. It is broad, sweeping, inappropriate, and in direct violation of WP:NDT. If you dispute a certain section, tag it with {{disputed-section}}. If a certain statement needs a citation, add {{fact}} or a related template immediately after the full stop. If some is wrong, fix it. But do not say that the whole article is moot when it is simply not. --Iamunknown 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia survey update

I've completed another round of my Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia survey, which I do periodically. The goal of this survey is to compare the relative quality of the two sites in terms of the degree to which their content can be verified. I try to use only objective metrics (are external links provided? are individual statements sourced? are all sections cited? etc.) Interestingly, Wikipedia not only comes out ahead again (as expected from a more mature project), but Conservapedia's overall quality does not appear to be increasing. This could be because articles are being added at a rate that exceeds quality control efforts, or it could be that there is some bias (in the non-pejorative sense) away from these standards. I take no particular stand on the matter, I'm just the guy who presses "random article" and takes notes ;-) -Harmil 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If this were applied to "other wikis" and with a bit more text, this would be something like what I was thinking of with the "compare and contrast" suggestion above. Jackiespeel 16:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, typically, other wikis don't set out to create an encyclopedia that solves the problems of Wikipedia. It's on that basis that I think any comparison (especially one carried out over time, in order to watch the improvement or lack thereof) is reasonable. -Harmil 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Come on, has it really been nominated as a good article or are you playing an April Fools joke? I know many of us have taken this article very seriously, and have given our very best, despite the controversy surrounding the topic. παράδοξος 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

editoral comments

I cannot find any mention of the the fact that Conservapedia takes quite strong editoral stances on some of its articles? Check out the main page which has a section labeled "Today's liberal falsehood:". Needs to be added to the article? --Fredrick day 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The nature of Conservapedia

There is something definitely "strange" about Conservapedia. It was set up with a particular target market and framework, and a proportion of the articles appear to have been written by the young persons it is intended for (and probably serves as useful a learning exercise as all such projects). Several of the faults and problems assigned to Conservapedia can be ascribed to its newness, and exploring what are the most appropriate forms of presentation (and some would occur in #any# collaborative project).

I think most people would accept "Please use US spelling and BC/AD" as working conventions - whatever their local use - but why create such a fuss about spelling on Wikipedia? Given the multilingual/multi-English-variant nature of Wikipedia users different spellings are going to occur. Claiming that using Habsburg rather than Hapsburg (to take an example) is evidence of an anti-evidence bias is stretching the definition. (The statistical logic about Wikipedia being 6x more liberal than America as a whole is incorrect - given the world-wide English using community who contribute to or use Wikipedia.)

However - there are certain aspects of Conservapedia which do not make sense. There are somewhat bizarre levels of apparent vandalism and attempts at humour (see the example I mention above). There is no control on the "random page" facility - which leads to the regular calling up of articles (mostly with a comment to the effect that the text has been blanked) inappropriate to the target market. One would expect articles to be presented from the given religious/cultural etc viewpoint (as they would be for other specialist wikis) - but some entries on Conservapedia are political or even extremist - to an extent that I can see some public libraries start blocking access to Conservapedia it (as they do Uncyclopedia).

(NB - can Archive page 2 be created.)

Jackiespeel 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed this, too. In the class I teach I use Conservapedia as a tool to show how propaganda works. It is stunningly overt in its faithfulness to the ideals of Schlafly. However, I don't think it is dangerous--yet. My very personal opinion is that CP will reach a critical mass at which point it will collapse into <gasp> facts, but that may be a ways off. The problem is, even Ed Poor can't ban people fast enough all the time to stop people from getting in. As I've watched this site, so many users are banned every day it is hard to imagine the site being useful for anything. This could be a very long tangent so I'll stop there, but as a social experiment, it is quite interesting. Menkatopia 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a request to be unbanned? Refresh my memory, on what grounds was your account blocked? --Uncle Ed 22:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

you must be confused - this is wikipedia, we do wikipedia business here - Conservapedia business is done over at Conservapedia. Do NOT conduct Conservapedia admin business here. --Fredrick day 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, no. I'd rather not discuss that, but thanks Fred for pointing that out. Menkatopia 19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedian's experience

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 Conservapedia's 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 dominant viewpoint is presented, it is permitted to remain in the article - if properly labeled. The classic formula X said Y about Z, which I labored hard to establish here, is (becoming) the norm there.

Less than 48 articles are currently protected. The 'flagship' article Theory of evolution is anti-Materialistic; it would would not be permitted at Wikipedia. It highly favors Creationism. Several contributors have been clamoring for this article's unprotection, but as they have no organized plan and have not submitted useful content nearly all their work has been reverted. They almost seem to court this treatment with an unrelenting stream of rude comments.

I seem to be an exception to this 'revert-on-sight' rule, and many of my additions have passed muster. <grin> No, I do not pander, I simply write neutrally. I guess my 5 years at Wikipedia, learning how to work collaboratively to craft a sort of 'consensus' on an article, are paying off. I am, of course, the original author of Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy.

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)

shouldn't this be on your userpage? what's it got to do with improving an article? --Fredrick day 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

this is a controversial issue and i see importance of what Uncle Ed is trying to say, though i respectfully disagree with Uncle Ed's assessments of Conservapedia and Wikipedia, facts and truths. Uncle Ed confuses truth with fact. Conservapedia renders "truth", and Wikipedia renders facts. παράδοξος 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a controversial issue, which is why the talk page should be used for discussion about improving the article only, and not for personal opinions about Conservapedia. - Nunh-huh 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow liberal sysop at CP, I can vouch for the validity of Uncle Ed's comments, and appreciate the insightfulness of παράδοξος. --Hojimachong^talk 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias of Wikipedia

Huge section in today's Conservapedia: Bia of Wikipedia. παράδοξος 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's been around since the very beginning. Its a comprehensive list of 42 ad hominem attacks! I really love how they try hard to find specific examples of bias, and it's pretty difficult. --Hojimachong^talk 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses sex to attract minors

I see the current number 3 on "examples of bias in wikipedia" says

"Statistics" and "Popular pages" are standard features in the wiki software used by Wikipedia and Conservapedia. But Wikipedia conceals this information from the public.[4] Why is Wikipedia hiding its data on its popular pages? Wikipedia used to be hosted by a company profiting from pornography.[5] Is Wikipedia traffic increased by its sex-related entries? Are minors, who are heavy users of Wikipedia, attracted to those entries?

Do we need to deal with that in this article? in another article (we have a critism of wikipedia article don't we? )--Fredrick day 09:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all their allegations of bias are fallacious. Most of the things they claimed as bias just seemed to be examples of WP:NPOV, ie they claim bias in that it's not God-biased. Which is an interesting argument to make, and not without its own merit, but such a philosophical debate is best left to another place. mattbuck 09:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

One could go through a point by point argument against the list: but to take several examples:

Again, clicking on the random page "several times" led to a minor-inapproriate header (with a comment that it was a protected delete)

Point 24 - complaining about articles with zero educational value - does Wikipedia claim to be an educational resource - and surely one function of Wikipedia is to fill minor gaps.

Point 28 - absence of article on elementary proof: quite a few large projects omit "basic definitions" until someone points them out.

As for bias - see their article on gun control at [[10]]. The Huns were "very barbaric, and frequently unkind to Christians."

Any coments "Reason in Conservapedia" at [[11]] as defining what might be wrong with Conservapedia?

Jackiespeel 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

the statement is despicable and liable. this is a "personal" attack against Wikipedia, and Wikipedia editors should use extreme caution responding. the comment is highly inflammatory and potentially liable. the comment is over the edge, and Wikipedia editors should consider approaching Wikipedia Officers on how to proceed. παράδοξος 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors SHOULD NOT RESPOND to this despicable claim unless Wikipedia Legal Guidance is provided, in my humble opinion. παράδοξος 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested FULL PROTECTION of the article until the matter is resolved by the appropriate Wikipedia Legal or Adminstrative guidance. i don't even know if the claim is true, and i need to verify. this action by this editor is preemptive. παράδοξος 03:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The quoted section doesn't explicitly say that wikipedia intentionally uses sex to attract minors. Andjam 03:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Paradoxos, I don't think anything needs to be done. Conservapedia's Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article has a lot fallacious and unsourced or original research and un-noted claims. No need to be concerned over any particular one. --Iamunknown 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

gotcha! i was worried about vandals hitting this article, but vandalism is just that. thanks for taking time to respond. παράδοξος 11:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It states "anti-American and anti-God (in reverse order)."

The more one looks at the project, the more unpleasant it seems.

Even the logic behind the statistics it quotes is falacious - not all Wikipedians are Americans, so no direct comparison can be mace between political viepoints - and "indifferent to American beliefs" does not mean anti-American. Jackiespeel 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Summing up to present

I think the various arguments about Conservapedia-as-a-thing are becoming circular.

There are "errors and glitches" as with any such project - shall we assume that many of them - and various of the design flaws - will be resolved given time. Many of those involved in Conservapedia appear to be newbies - we should treat them gently as requested within Wikipedia.

This talk page is here to describe Conservapedia-the-Wikipedia-article, not criticise, express disapproval of, or amusement at Conservapedia-the-entity, or express our disapproval. The various legal threats and complaints made by Conservapedia (and the matter of licencing) are probably best dealt with elsewhere.

Let us see how Conservapedia develops rather than complaining about it, or complaining about the complaints.

Consider the positive points - it is an interesting exercise in how to run a wiki-encyclopedia on principles deliberately different to those of Wikipedia (even to using "Very Short Article" rather than "This is a stub") - and most people who have been following this discussion will now be aware of the existence of other wikis operating on a basis of a particular viewpoint or covering a particular area than they were before.

Jackiespeel 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. I agree with J's comments. In fact, what I like most about that site (aside from the fact that some of my students have contests to see who can get banned the quickest) is the contrast they present to Wikipedia. I think we have a real opportunity to show how NPOV we can be (though that strikes me as a slightly tautologious). At any rate, enough blathering, it would be better to show their shortcomings and successes through the lens of what they produce and how notable they become. Wonderful fun. Menkatopia 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also the "how many clicks on the random article button before you come across an article that comes under the not suitable for minors/public library terminal" game. Given that they ask for sources, there are remarkably few of them. See also [[12]]. Jackiespeel 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Talk section of Conservapedia's article on National Cancer Institute on Abortion I pointed out that according to their own data, cancer risk is least if abortion is no later than the first trimester, which means that the right-to-lifers, by attempting to delay abortions, are increasing women's risk of breast cancer. At first my note was there; then they just blocked the Talk section. So much for intellectual honesty.Alloco1 21:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, they just unblocked. Maybe they decided a little honesty is better than right-wing dishonesty.Alloco1 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we remove off-topic chatter?

The {{off topic warning}} at the top of this page notes that off-topic chatter can be removed. Usually Wikipedia is lenient on this, however a large part of this talk page seems taken up with commenting on Conservapedia itself, rather than commenting on ways to improve the article here. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to be more aggressive in removing off-topic chatter from this talk page? --Interiot 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I removed a section called "Cant create account"(sic) earlier today, and there is plenty more that could go. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 21:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just archive it? Tmtoulouse 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

yes - let's archive anything not current within a couple of days. --Fredrick day 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How about removing any off topic chatter "rapidly" to its own, marked as such, archive? Rather than wholesale deletion, out of respect for the authors. But I agree strongly and onehundredpercently it should not be in the way of trying to follow discussion about this article. I'd really like to "discuss this article", but the talk page became overly cumbersome very rapidly. Huw Powell 00:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i am in the process of reworking all archived comments, in order to make them readily accessible. each general topic will have its own subpage. once i finish it, i'll post for your review -- see the infoboxes on this articles talk subpage. παράδοξος 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

anyone know where i can get the template for the Infobox at the bottom of this page: Userbox_Maker page? i looked in the infobox template and infobox list pages, to no avail. παράδοξος

some topics are clearly off-topic, others may at first appear off-topic, but are meaningful contributions to the article. the threshold for off-topic should be high and we should be tolerant, cautious, and thoughtful when deleting purported off-topic comments. παράδοξος 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

discussion about Conservapedia content serves a very useful purpose, airing potentially encylopedic content that may be incorporated into this article. an editor observes content on Conservapedia, and they post it here. we review and evaluate the editors posting. if deemed noteworthy, we incorporate the idea derived from the post into the article. just because one editor considers a comment to be off-topic, does not mean there is unanimous consensus. this article was nominated as a good article, it is not perfect, but the article has encyclopedic value. so, I STRONGLY DISAGREE with arbitrarily removing perceived off-topic comments -- the threshold for removing must be high for this controversial article. παράδοξος 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason I see to remove comments from a talk page is if the comments are total nonsense. (I'm sure there's a policy page about this somewhere.) —Ben FrantzDale 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the proper approach to take generally, when large throngs of people aren't misusing the talk page, since the line is pretty blurry. But the talk page seems to be very frequently misused, people are posting pure opinion that has no chance of being reliably sourced and thus won't ever be helpful to the article. I've spent some amount of time on Conservapedia, I could frequently respond with my own opinions of the place, but that's not what this talk page is for. Pure opinion should be speedy-archived, and if people wish to refactor their comment into something that has the slightest chance of being properly sourced, then it can be unarchived. --Interiot 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be much of a problem but remember BLP. If any of that off topic chatter evolves into attacks or unsourced opinions and claims of the conservapedia creators & editors, it should be removed with vengence regardless of what is agreed here about general off topic chatter Nil Einne 18:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, what's the use of an offtopic removal thread without an offtopic comment? I'll do the duty. Conservapedia appears to have offtopic problems of it's own [13]. Also, I can't believe Andrew C. Oliver bet me to the 'pretend to be a good little conservative' plan... Nil Einne 19:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get what you're saying, Mr. Pi (paradaxos?). A comment like "I can't log on to CP" may in and of itself seem like nothing to do with the article, but could possible lead to sourced information about when and how CP allows new registrations (I think they open things up for a little time, then try to sort through the vandals that get in - but I only "know" that from reading discussion and user pages). Or someone could source and write about the publicity in late February that led to the mocking bloggers, a mass wave of vandalism, and overloading their servers. At first, the comment might only be about the "subject" itself (CP), but it might evolve into good article information. By the way, I know I should find or start a different thread for this, but it seems odd to me that there are two subheadings that are the only ones in their main heading. Structurally it irks the copyeditor in me ;) Huw Powell 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Signing up for

It might bear mentioning that there is currently no way to sign up for a new account on Conservapedia. There is a way to sign in, but not sign up. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

they switch it off over night. --Fredrick day 10:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Registration_is_closed.3F "Registration is opened from about noon to 10 pm NYC time. We've been closing it before the drunks come out. Actual times can vary due depending on our webmaster's schedule. We'll probably return to round-the-clock open registration again soon.--Aschlafly 11:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)" I believe the basic concept is to avoid being drowned in vandalism, by one, as Andy says, keeping the drunks out (what about European drunks? Early afternoon drunks?) and two, keeping new accounts to a manageable number so sysops can track their edits and delete them quickly if they are "unfriendly" to the site. Huw Powell 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hypocritical views of Andrew Schlafly

Just pointing out that while Andrew Schlafly is accusing wikipedia of being biased, he himself is a hypocrite, as he has stated that he has attempted to edit articles "to include pro-Christian or pro-American views", evidence of his biased views against anti or neutral American/Christian views

Directly from article:

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian newspaper, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds — so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."[2] On March 7 Andrew Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that many Wikipedia articles use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly.[20] Conservapedia has asserted that, "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."[21] Agonsw 08:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no hypocracy here. Schlafly has never claimed that bias is Wikipedia's problem, he's claimed that liberal bias is Wikipedia's problem. He's not upset because Wikipedia violates NPOV, he's upset because it does not contain his POV. You're approaching this from a Wikipedia-centric NPOV standpoint, and while I (like you, apparently) think that that's the most sane approach to creating an encyclopedia, I don't think that it's fair to call people who don't agree with that hypocritcs. -Harmil 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

How can Schlafly #prove# that most Wikipedia users are American and/or Christians (of whatever persuasion)? Is he referring to English language Wikipedia - or the whole? See my comments above about the use of statistics.

Does he state what article was changed within 60 seconds? How many articles in general are so changed (excluding ones "with a tendency to be creatively edited" or where someone corrects a typo/accidental mangling)? Jackiespeel 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not call him a hypocrit unless I had a valid reason. What was meant by Shlafly being hypocritical, was the fact that he argued that wikipedia is biased as it is anti american and anti christian. Conservapedia is the same, only it is pro american and christian, making it itself biased, thus he is a hypocrit. I have no problem with people disagreeing with wikipedia, it's just the fact that Shlafly creates the conservapedia with the same issues he saw in wikipedia and still openly discredits wikipedia because of these apparrent he sees in it. Agonsw

Differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia

On their list point 12 about stubs - the term "very short article" is used: and many articles are very short but have no comment on them.

Are there any comments anywhere about how various other "themed" Wikis differ from Wikipedia? Do they have lists like Conservapedia's? Jackiespeel 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no Andrew Shlafly page?

He seems worthy of a biograpghical page or at least a sub heading on the Conservapedia page. Agonsw 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there should be one. Someone just added brackets to his name to make it a link - but his "page" has been a redirect to here for a while and still is. I am removing the brackets (link) until someone creates a page for him. Can anyone find basic biographical info, so combined with some CP stuff, there will be content? He has certainly been quoted about more than CP in the media (eg, abortion causing breast cancer). Huw Powell 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing consevapedia

how is it possible to edit conservapedia articles, logging on seems impossible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agonsw (talk • contribs) 07:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Summary part 2

Before I move onto other matters (and using "themed Wiki" for convenience).

This is #what I observe# directly or from what others say:

Wikipedia, for several reasons, is the most prominent of a group of online encyclopedias, and is used as a benchmark/for comparison.

Certain articles (not being developing events etc) in Wikipedia and Conservapedia (and possibly elsewhere) are subject to vandalism or rearrangement. A number of articles are likely to have POV issues ("Bad King John" of England etc), whichever the wiki used.

"Themed Wikis" are likely to present articles from their preferred viewpoints (the computer orientated ones will have Bugs-as-in-computers, with a "see also" to the critters) and should be considered in terms of the "set of definitions/operating principles" adopted.

Many of the Wikis allow people to edit on IP addresses. Wikipedia blocks some IP addresses (on grounds of vandalism etc) but allows "known editors" to sign via these IPs (the blocks are, in the few cases I have checked, not in place for non-English areas of Wikipedia, or other Wikis). There appears to be no bar on who can edit most Wikis - providing the editor acts with due courtesy and adds information or asks relevant questions. Conservapedia requires people to log in, and wishes them to follow certain political/theological/cultural guidelines. Conservapedia operates on a "known and agreed editors" principle, and banishes people for idiosyncratic reasons. (As stated in my earlier posting, "please adhere by the following guidelines, including choice of spelling/date presentation" type requests are not an issue.)

Most Wikis are likely to have a number of "minimalist articles" - for reasons including "there is very little information on this topic" to "relevant page of encyclopedia/website X is very thorough - click here for link" and "we are waiting for someone with more knowledge of the subject to develop it."

Wikipedia prefers articles to be overviews or derived from information available elsewhere in a reasonably accessible form. Conservapedia makes the same claim - but many of its articles either do not provide references, or make use of a very limited range of sources. Conservapedia has a number of "study documents", a format which does not occur on Wikipedia.

Clicking repeatedly on the "Random article" in many Wikis leads to articles that are library-friendly/work-safe/suitable for minors - doing so with Conservapedia regularly does not. Given that one of Conservapedia selling points is that it is aimed at the 11-16 age group some might call this a problem.

A number of articles on Conservapedia appear to rely on "deliberately faulty logic" or appear to be biased to those outside the intended readership group - gun control being an example. (There is a difference between "This is the viewpoint of group Z on subject y" "and this is why we oppose group W" in Z-opedia, and articles which appear to say "this is the only correct political/theological etc viewpoint on the subject.")

I think we are getting to the stage where we will have to say "this is Wikipedia's position and policies, those are Conservapedia's and we are unlikely to draw any closer in the discussion" and confine the Wikipedia article to an overview of Conservapedia and its development. A number of the "typos and inelegances" have already been corrected: "in six months time" some of the other issues raised may have been resolved. There is as much justification for making Conservapedia a single political/religious/cultural viewpoint, using a single variant of a single language as there is for Wikipedia to use the multiples - which does not make Wikipedia anti-American or anti-Christian (or pro- or anti- almost any other groups - beyond vandals and others who cause injury or damage without reason).

One last point - discussions of the proprietor of Conservapedia are more relevant on the talk page of the Wikipedia article about him than here.

Jackiespeel 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Some clarifications on policy

1. It is impossible to EVER edit anonymously... even your own IP talk page, which it asks you to edit. [14]

2. You can't make an account between certain hours because it wants to keep the site for Americans only, I believe.

3. The page for Republicans is a long history of their greatness, the democrats writes short snippets about the hypocrisy of their platform!

Electricbassguy 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible COI

this is interesting - basically the site owner is attempting to use the breast cancer article to push the idea that abortion is a major cause of breast cancer. In his day job, he sues doctors on that basis. Can we work this into the article or do we need for a 3rd party comment on it? --Fredrick day 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

wow, definitely difficult to incorporate with NPOV! might work if we can incorporate it as an exemplary philosophical difference why Conservapedia exists without POV. i am sure someone will pick up the story, write about it, publish it, then we can cite it independently.:D otherwise, 3rd party comment is appropriate in my opinion. παράδοξος 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Although Aschafly certainly has "issues" with this issue, the actual article on Breast Cancer at CP is not too bad, and currently makes no mention of the "abortion/breast cancer" link. Methinks this is all the more reason for Mr. Schafly, Esq., to have his own article. He is certainly well reported on enough by now to have good cites in real media, and the article would be a good place to, if appropriate, include things he has written and signed on CP talk pages. Huw Powell 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Freak me out, but what the comment by Paradaxos above used to say was "wow, definitely COI! might work if we can incorporate it as an exemplary philosophical difference why Conservapedia exists without NPOV." Strange how (s)he reversed the meaning of what (s)he was saying. I know this doesn't matter (or does it?), but it does make it hard to follow what people are saying if they edit their comments without using "strikethrough" on the old text. Huw Powell 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

i think we can work it into this article, but we should consider asking a senior Wikipedia administrator how to proceed. i like your idea, ALOT. παράδοξος 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for misspelling: It's Andrew Schlafly, I left out the first "l". Huw Powell 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like original research to me. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Transfinite here. It's original research to compare two primary sources and draw a conclusion. i kan reed 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and well put. Makes it easier for noobs like me to understand. An article of this nature treads very close to the OR line, for legitimate reasons (EG, quoting the CP commandments, I don't think there is an up to date version "in print"), but still can't go over that line, and I think you described what the "other side" of that line looks like perfectly. Huw Powell 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research

From the article:

The policing of articles is accomplished by Andrew Schlafly himself, and 30 additional sysops. (List of Conservapedia sysops) Throughout March of 2007, this small group had numerous problems preserving the creationist viewpoint of Conservapedia, since the majority of the dedicated editors and administrators of the site disagree with their goal of censorship of non-creationist viewpoints, and edit accordingly. (See, e.g., the Theory of Evolution Talk Page, especially the "Vote" section, expressing this majority.)

This entire passage seems like original research to me. The first cite is just a sysop count (33 as of April 11, 2007), and the second cite is "Look at the vote!". While the vote didn't seem to have any sockpuppetry, using it to say "this small group had numerous problems preserving the creationist viewpoint of Conservapedia" runs pretty close to a "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material." --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While altering that, we should add that conservapedia has a secret panel of homeschooled children who are the ultimate authority on what is suitable for inclusion in an article. --Fredrick day 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like Wikipedia, really! Carfiend 00:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I went through all the User pages with entries (because I don't have a life) and found a handful of kids who self-identified as homeschooled, they were participants early on, but none of them are active now. CP is now a private sandbox with a bunch of sysops banning editors for petty slights, and protected articles being edited, live, by the protecting sysop. --Ruby 05:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

em.. that's not me trying to be funny - check out panel, they recently ruled on what the TOE article should look like. --Fredrick day 07:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Incident

I want to see it included, so don't get me wrong, but how does it not violate WP:OR and what WP:ATT can we source for it? Tmtoulouse 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the same concerns. There's no way that what we have now are reliable sources. JoshuaZ 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there at least his "self-outing" on his blog, and discussion about him on CP? I realize those aren't exactly the New York Times, but if we aren't allowed to quote from CP itself, and have to stick with "strong" sources, this article will fall apart. For instance, the CP commandments may have been printed elsewhere by now, but they have changed twice (at least). The only way to keep them up is to continually quote (and requote) CP itself. So as long as a solid history of the "Richard incident" exists on CP, that should be a legitimate source. However, the nature of CP is not the same as WP - they do seem to happily completely erase things they aren't happy with, so the "Richard" story may vanish into thin air. Did any 3rd parties (ie, not "richard", and not CP) pick up on it and report on it? Huw Powell 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We can use a primary source for certain things, and I think the conservapedia commandments is an appropriate use of the primary source (see WP:ATT under primary source). However, the richard incident involves summarizing and synthesis from multiple primary sources with at least his blog not meeting WP:ATT. If there are no other sources, which I am almost certain there are not, then it needs to go. Tmtoulouse 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case the appropriate thing to do is err on the side of caution. I am going to be bold and remove the section, if those who want it in can come her and provide secondary sources we will but it back in. Tmtoulouse 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text from the article so people can work with it and try and source it reliably:

In late March of 2007, one of Conservapedia's sysops revealed himself to be a parody, a fake persona created by "soon-to-be-former-Republican" Andrew C. Oliver. Oliver created the editor "Richard" (after former US president Richard Nixon) and wrote an article praising Warren Harding as "one of our greatest presidents" (whereas in his regular persona, Oliver called Harding "at best corrupt and at least woefully incompetent"). This article was praised by site founder Andrew Schlafly, and "Richard" was promoted to the status of sysop. Continuing to push the parody, "Richard" wrote an article lauding Jesse Helms, frequently praised former senator Joseph McCarthy, and finally set up a list of suspected liberal Conservapedia editors in homage to McCarthy's own Communist-sympathizer lists. The administration only realized "Richard" was a parody after an online confession, following which he was de-sysoped and banned.

Tmtoulouse 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know much about wikipedia's standards. (Thus I have not made an account). But I don't see any problem with sourcing Conservapedia's logs, although the conclusions might be biased. Richard's claim that he created the Warren Harding is easily verified. It was indeed created by him, and the article contains most of his original wording. Strangely even the line "Harding's undeviating Republicanism and vibrant speaking voice, plus his willingness to let the machine bosses set policies, led him far in Ohio politics," was left unaltered. I don't know what Schafly thought of the article, but I suspect he must have liked it enough to leave it. He was indeed promoted to sysop and then later banned. I see no reason why Conservapedia's records cannot verify that. And although it was taken down, he really did have a list of suspected liberals. That I saw myself, although we would need to prove it somehow.

However, I would certainly not call a Satirist's Blog Non-point of view. For all we know, Schafly may have had his own reasons for blocking Richard, and the blog account should not be used verbatim, as it is now. 70.21.231.66 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dropped off Alexa

Today Conservapedia dropped completely off Alexa, making it, in my mind, a candidate for AfD again. --Ruby 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the fact that it has numerous reliable sources that thoroughly cover it [15] [16] [17] [18] mean that an AfD is fairly unlikely to result in deletion. --Interiot 07:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, old news is still notable and verifiable. That's the nice about using verifiability to gauge notability is the degree of verifiability of something never goes down. i kan reed 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alexa rankings are at best iffy as an indicator of popularity, especially at the low end of the spectrum. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 00:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing of Conservapedia

I think the Conservapedia talk page [[19]] summarises much of the discussion on the topic (and is the "sin up" an example of a Freudian slip?). Jackiespeel 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

as a note on this article, whenever you cite the talk page as evidence, you have to realize that it's a primary source. For wikipedia, that means the best you can do with it and still have it be verifiable is make a statement about the literal contents of the page. It's original research to summarize it. It's original research to compare it to something. It's original research to even conclude that the statements made on that page are the actual opinions of those who made the statements. i kan reed 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was noting it here as a useful link (and some of the entries do look "slightly" tongue in cheek) - which is not quite OR. I suspect none of the other wikis have caused so much discussion. Jackiespeel 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Obscenity/legal threat

We now have a reliable source about that matter if someone wants to put it in. See [20]. JoshuaZ 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really want, but isn't newsmax a little borderline? Andjam 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Locks and blocks

Standard Conservapedia policy currently seems to be for their 'sysops' to write their own articles (especially in such vital areas as religion, creationism and evolution) and then lock them so that nobody else can correct their often uninformed and ignorant views, let alone replace them with others. Non-fundamentalists who contribute 'heretical' articles are liable to find them first re-titled (e.g. from 'Bible contradictions' to 'Alleged Bible contradictions'), then re-directed (in this case to 'Is the Bible inerrant?') and finally downgraded to a 'project' instead of an article (as, likewise, in this case). I say 'finally', but I imagine it's only a matter of time before such articles are deleted entirely. Editors are therefore recommended to save any efforts they may care to make to their own archives for possible future reposting, possibly under a different name!

In addition, I have recently been arbitrarily blocked (permanently, I imagine, but they haven't had the decency to tell me - sysops can block anybody at the drop of a hat) for (a) 'insults' (highlighting what they are up to), (b) 'disruption' (reminding them of what the Bible actually says) and (c) 'insulting Jesus' (explaining that 'Christ' is a title, not a name). A friend of mine has similarly been blocked - in his case for correcting their Greek and thus revealing the inherent dodginess of their claimed sources.

So... contribute to it at your peril! --PL 09:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well as the above says, this isn't the place to discuss problems you encounter with conservapedia or the arbitary way they may block people. If you can find something resembling a reliable source which discusses these issues, then we could discuss whether to include these criticisms of the article however Nil Einne 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Trouble is, that would mean persuading 'some reliable source' to discuss the issues, when I know perfectly well what they are, having experienced them myself! But then direct witnesses don't count as 'reliable sources' around here - which is odd, when you think about it. So it's a sort of Catch-22... --PL 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem in general with this article. The subject is notable due to a flurry of media notice, but is unlikely (IMO) to generate much more reporting, leaving us with a rather dated set of sources, none of which are very in-depth. Meanwhile, of course as a wiki, CP keeps changing. Unless the changes are "reported" on, we can't really write about them here, since that would be OR. For instance, the commandments changed twice so far (article keeps abreast, does not note changes, that's OR). Also, three links have been added to the bottom of the page, I quote (I fixed the links so they will work from here, and reduceed the heading markup to bold for simplicity):

The Following Links Also Govern This Site

• Conservapedia Guidelines
• Conservapedia:Copyright
• Conservapedia:Administrators

The Admin file is quite interesting, it includes this: "Sysops 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." (italics in original).

There is also a secret commandment - "do not embarrass Andy" that turns up all over the place. The trouble is we can't document any of this unless someone else reports on it. And sorry if all that sounded like negative stuff about CP, we likewise can't write about improvements to the site unless someone reports on it. making work on this article an interesting challenge. Huw Powell 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the same as with their locked articles. Not only are they not subject to what they call 'bad edits', but they can't receive 'good' ones either!

Re reporting what is going on, how about including facts from first-hand reports such as the above, with the relevant claims directly referenced to Conservapedia? Would that be factual and reliable enough? After all, I'm not contributing to the article, so whoever is could reference my report. Or could they? ;) --PL 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

New Scientist

The New Scientist mentioned Conservapedia in their "feedback" column this week. Probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source (NS does but I don't think the feedback column would) but might be worth considering Nil Einne 14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link, or is it subscription only? (If so, can you quote it here?) Huw Powell 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's on the NS website. mattbuck 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination - Fail - Unstable & Unbalanced Article

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, just that the entire article seems to be told from the perspective of someone whose main motivation is to discredit Conservapedia. This is coming from someone who hasn't worked on the article and is reading it for the first time. The tone of the article is basically, "hey, look how stupid these people are, they think kangaroos came from Noah's Ark! Here's another example of how stupid these people are!" I can't say I don't disagree with you, but I believe that an encylopedia entry should present the facts and let the reader decide if Conservapedia is stupid or not. It's hard to come up with specific suggestions to make this happen, since the tone is pervasive throughout the entire article. However, it is possible that the subject matter does not provide the possibility for fixing this, and furthermore, judging from the reactions of the editors of this article, I suggest you renominate the article for Good Article status and get a second opinion.

However, be aware that one of the criteria for Good Article status is stability. Quoting the Good Article criteria page, the article must be "stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars." Over the past week, this article has averaged 9.6 edits per day, which may be an indication that more work needs to be done to come to a consensus on the information this article presents, and the tone of its presentation. Snottywong 13:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Think about it this way: If Andrew Schlafly had written this article, what would it be like (assuming everything was cited and referenced)? I'm not saying the article should be as if Schlafly had written it, but looking at it from that perspective illustrates that there are different points of view from which this topic can be approached, and the POV from which it is currently approached may not be the most neutral one. Snottywong 16:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know that just look here [21] this was what Schlafly wrote, whatever factual information is in that article is in the current version. Everything else is half-truths, lies, misrepresentations and self-serving BS. Schlafly is a liar and any article he writes would reflect his lack of morals and self-serving agenda. I don't think this is a very worthwhile train of thought. Tmtoulouse 01:34, 16 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)

What Fredrick said. Also note that WP:NPOV says nothing about "balance"- Wikipedia doesn't function like some newsources where there is a need to present everything as having equal wait (thank God and Jimbo Wales). If the vast majority of information in reliable sources about a topic is negative, there is no policy against presenting the material in a way that reflects what reliable sources have to say. Indeed, it would be non-neutral do otherwise. JoshuaZ 19:15, 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)

Reviewing Conservatively

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

Logo out of date again

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)

I just noticed, also, that the current logo has a typo in it: Trustworthy is spelled Trusworthy... I'm going to tell someone so they can fix it, though. Huw Powell 19:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

block policy

Could the block policy be referenced: [22]?

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).