Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

I believe we are having a DDOS attack right now... started at 12:30 EST(summer) august 17th... is that worth a mention? 64.231.193.171 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack is still going... 64.231.193.171 18:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, a different site's DDOS attack isn't worth a mention in an article about Conservapedia. --

McGeddon

18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A simpler explanation is that there is problem with your sites nameserver or the server your site is located on. I see no evidence of an attack. This is off topic anyway, might warrant removal. Tmtoulouse 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was prevented from signing on because i used the screenname "thissiteisasham". This contradicts the basic claim of free editing. I am appaled

Yeah, I was IP blocked because I made an account entitled "liberalsrule" with the reason: "now you can rule at wikipedia". What a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.142.163 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does this article have to be about wikipedia vs conservapedia. Most of the article is covering either the founder of conservapedia's criticisms of wikipedia, or visa versa. POV

The reason why wikipedia figures heavily into the conservapedia article is because conservapedia was formed as a reaction against wikipedia. Therefore to understand conservapedia one must understand what it was reacting against. Roninbob 04:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermoore it would be difficult not to

Tourskin

06:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's just be careful not to make this into a Conservapedia article, using every conceivable oppurtunity to attack Wikipedia.--74.13.89.3 12:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement about this. I don't favor the inclusion since we dont have any source that explicitly connects the project with pseudoscience. However, I don't think the recent argument "If wikipedia has a bunch of pseduscientific articles, would it be "pseudoscience" as well?" holds water since Wikipedia doesn't have policies which support pseudoscience. Overall, I think we should leave the cat out for now. JoshuaZ 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I visited the site and checked the policy page, I didn't find any mention about the creationism controversy, so I made that comment. Also, I agree with you that the category should not apply. The reason is,

Talk to me?

22:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If a website has sufficient promotion or discussion of pseudoscience, it should have the category. Hence the category says "this category comprises articles pertaining to pseudoscience" JoshuaZ 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, let's put this debate aside, can you provide the link where the Conservapedia explicitly states in policy that they support creationism?

Talk to me?

03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one as far as I'm aware although there are

reliable sources that said pretty close to that (why are we bothering going through this much effort if we both agree that it shouldn't be here?) JoshuaZ

03:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you do have a point, sorry about that. No need for further arguing :-)

Talk to me?

04:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Their Server

Maybe there should be some mention of their notoriously slow server. It seems that about half the time their page either doesn't load, or takes an extremely long time to load. For a site that claims to be a definitive conservative source, its server power sure seems to be incredibly rinky-dink. --Boss hogg01 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a

reliable source that discusses this then we can include it. JoshuaZ

04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

have you guys seen Conservapedia's article on us?

haha, it's pretty harsh. w/e, Conservapedia = Elitist Christians.

"Elitist Christians" you're as bad as the Conservapedia fanatics now. They are elitist, and the majority of them christian, yes, but you need not put the two together. "elitist" would have sufficed. Instead, you have xposed your own bias.John 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC), a Christian but middle of the road and very not "elitist."

Excuse me, but have you read the Jesus entry on Conservapedia? The very first sentence reads "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death." - and that's just the tip of the iceberg, the whole encyclopedia oozes with Christian PoVs... and they have the nerve to call Wikipedia biased. As long as Conservapedia is dominated by Christian PoVs and no serious efforts are made to correct that flaw, the term "Elitist Christians" is appropriate. However, I'd be more concerned if people would start to use those two words synonymously if I were you, since "Elitist Christian" at least implies that there are Christians that are not elitists. detrius 13:13, 10 August 2007 (GMT+1)

"Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public." I think they misspelled neutral :/ (maybe its the homeschooling) --

18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha lol its ridiculous isnt it, a encylopedia that admits its own bias, I mean honestly 'our study shows' well of course their study would show that crap, because its inherently bias. The probelsm with these far right christiofacists (and yes I am a chrisitan myself) is that they percieve anything left of centre right as liberal, If wikipedia is 6X more liberal than the American public, than the American public must make the gestapo look like child carers. Oh one other thing, I knew these right wingers claimed to be able to do a lot of things, but I never knew they had invented a liberal 'O' meter yet, wikipedia must be a 500 or something on the liberal 'O' meter. A bit off topic I know, but its almost self abasement to say things like that, I mean im no liberal (sometimes I am branded as one as some kind of 'insult', possibly because I believe that all people are equal and that is a liberal idea to these far right wingers) as such, I would call myself centre, or I abstain from politics, but that is just hilarious.172.214.9.67 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does one quantify liberalness? Does the American public have an average liberalness of 7, and Wikipedia an average of 42? They haven't even defined whether the scale is linear or logarithmic! --Nathan (Talk) 00:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, they are not comparing like with like - Wikipedia is multinational and multicultural (and probably a fair percentage of people operating in EnglishWikipeda operate in other languages as well).

As for point 11 on their list of criticisms of Wikipedia - the entry on Milton-Keynes-the-person and Stafford Crisp remains.

Point 48 about Wikipedia's fascination with English social distinctions - but read the entry on HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Previous comments regarding the "20 articles survey" (seeing how many short and/or unreferenced articles can be found by clicking on "random article" that number of times, and excluding disambiguation and talk pages etc) still stand (and can be used in other contexts).

Can I mention evowiki at [[1]] - there is no article in Wikipedia on it yet. Jackiespeel 16:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this really add anything to the article? There is quite a bit of

) 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant. RW started in response to CP but it's not relevant in the CP article. There should be a RW article for this stuff, though I doubt that it's notable yet.

Totnesmartin

09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll delete the section tomorrow based on the above concerns.

Addhoc

13:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to touch the RW stuff as its COI for me, but for what its worth, I concur that we are not yet wikipedia notable and don't belong here. Tmtoulouse 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the RationalWiki section as there were no authoratative sources and it was original research. Also, the site is not notable and appears to have only a handful of editors. Jazzman123 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned up grammar and style in that section, and then stumbled onto this talk page. Out of curiosity, if everyone here is the section on "RaionalWiki," why is it still included in the article? I guess I won't delete it for now, since it may have been kept for a reason, but please respond if you know why it is in fact still here. Homologeo 18:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, since it was almost pure OR and sour grapes this time around. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The article used to state:

Conservapedia presents evolution as an incorrect interpretation of measurable and observable evidence, phenomena, and claims that all living organisms were created in their current form,

This is not how Conservapedia presents the matter. First, Conservapedia presents "The Theory of evolution" and not "evolution". Secondly, where does Conservapedia state it is an "incorrect interpretation"?

Here is what I replaced the above sentence with which more accurately reflects the Conservapedia article on the Theory of evolution:

Conservapedia presents the theory of evolution as lacking support and states that creationist scientists and some secular science journals state that it is contra-evidence [2]

Jazzman123 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• [1] the Conservapedia article titled "Theory of Evolution" is a redirect to "Evolution", so Conservapedia doesn't seem to make the distinction you wish it did.
• [2] said article maintains that most "defenders" of evolution are "atheists", referencing that assertion to a creationist website, and is full of other patent nonsense; this is to be expected when the primary sources used are creationist websites, CBS News, and Merriam-Webster's dictionary. It's a preposterous list of non-scientific sources on a scientific subject.
• [3] Conservapedia provides more misinformation and disinformation than information about evolution.
• If you are interested in accuracy, perhaps the sentence really should be "Conservapedia misrepresents the theory of evolution as lacking support, and bases its description and understanding of evolution on religious diatribes rather than by reference to scientific publications". In any case, "contra-evidence" can't stand, as it's a silly made-up word. - Nunh-huh 23:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is the opposite way you describe. The article is titled "Theory of evolution" and if you type in "Evolution" it redirects you to "Theory of evolution". Please show me where the article states that most defenders of the theory of evolution are atheists. I believe you are misquoting and you gave no direct quote. Lastly, you state that Conservapedia misinforms regarding the theory of evolution yet you fail to give even one example. Jazzman123 01:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully decline. If you can't recognize the misrepresentations, so much the worse for you. This talk page is for discussion of this article, not Conservapedia's inadequacies. - Nunh-huh 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is for reasoned discussion and not for trotting out a lot of accusations you cannot reasonably defend. The "most defenders of evolution are atheists" charge you made would be easy to defend if what you stated were true. Jazzman123 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who reads beyond the first sentence of Conservapedia's woefully inadequate article may judge for themselves. Now, what are we going to do about your use of a neologism in this article?- Nunh-huh 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be so at present.

This talk page appears to be wandering towards discussing the pros and cons of Conservapedia itself - not how to improve this article, or describing how the site itself develops (would "evolves" be appropriate?). Jackiespeel 14:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They prefer the term "change over time." omg ShiftPlusOne 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Evolves" is utterly ironic. "Change over time" is hysterical.

Scarian^Talk

03:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples?

Should we include examples of Conservapedia's plainly ignoring facts? For example, the article on Canada asserts that the current national flag was imposed on the Canadian people by the Liberal government of the time to appease socialists and Québec nationalists. This, needless to say, is not true. The article on communism begins by stating that the ideology has claimed more than 100 million lives and continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's population.

Soviet Canuckistan 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid examples we come up with rank as original research. My personal choice would be the Hepatitis B vaccine article, in which we "learn" that the vaccine causes multiple sclerosis, and is given for the purpose of enriching the manufacturer. What we don't learn is that it prevents hepatitis B. Yes, that's right: nowhere in the article do we learn the actual reason it is administered; nowhere does the article acknowledge, even grudgingly, that the vaccine prevents hepatitis B.... - Nunh-huh 04:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One article which clearly shows their bias is the one on Deceit (including the discussion), and I was infuriated. Schlafly is simply being deceitful with his statements "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong". The footnote to the first statement goes to the Ten Commandments, the footnote to the second is to a US Supreme Court case saying that you can't put the Ten Commandments on classroom walls in public schools. Apparently, the only way one teaches that deceit is wrong is to post the Ten Commandments on classroom walls. Jhobson1 10:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Now merely describes the town.

The 'Debate Fork or Spoon' remains - and the Falafel/loofah comment has been restored.

The Conservapedia comment on the article link on today's C main - to [[3]] effectively contradicts what is said in the comments.

The proportion of short and/or unreferenced articles remains.

Jackiespeel 13:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we using http://www.rationalwiki.com as a source? it does not (to me) match

22:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I removed it as a source where I saw it. Might want to double-check though.

VanTucky

22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Block list

VanTucky-Why are you pushing the trash about 3000 users being blocked? Firstly, it is 3000 usernames NOT users; secondly, the source you are using, CPs own block log, clearly states that the reason for many of the blocks is trolling, vandalism, sock puppets; also, the log shows that the autoblock is picking up these socks too. Others are obviously blocked for the username, eg FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK - not really going to let that one stay, are they? This is just sour grapes bellyaching from VanTucky, attempting to mislead with his edit. Have you been blocked from there or something? And the excuse that "the source does not etc" is total garbage - the source STATES THE REASONS!! 89.241.225.210 23:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Calm the fuck down. Take a breather. It is not just "names". It is users and the IP's they come from. The reason the source does not support the claim about why is not that it doesn't say, is that while it is reliable to check Conservapedia for how many blocks it has in place, it is not okay to just take its word on why. That needs an independent third-party source.

VanTucky

23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the list shows a vast number of autogenerated blocks, refuting your claim. Also, sequential uses of eg Carlowcrab to Carlowcrab15, the first blocking listed as being a sock of previous blocked user Crippes, shows that blocking of multiple socks is taking place. Now, you either want the reference included or you don't, but you can't cherry pick the facts from it to suit yourself and your POV. 89.241.225.210 23:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not cherry-picking. The names do not prove they are sock puppets. Even if it did, just accepting what that page simply implies about the blocking policy of Conservapedia is not an allowable source. A reliable third-party source that directly states Conservapedia's blocking policy is necessary.

VanTucky

00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So the POV tag is about only the 3000 blocked users? First of all I am not so sure that the sentence belongs in criticism it probably belongs in the description of the site. But what does the anonymous user want the wording to be? Tmtoulouse 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, there is no autoblock, not to my knowledge. --Liπus the Turbogeek^{(contact me)} 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting it in description is actually the proper way to go about it, because unless we can find a third-party source that criticizes Conservapedia for its blocking, then it technically constitutes

VanTucky

20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the anonymous user has a dynamic IP address and its getting difficult to track their changes and contributions. May I suggest that they register an account? Tmtoulouse 16:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to add that when I tried to make an account there, using the same name (BockBockChicken), I was blocked within the hour - the reason being "name". I haven't made a single edit, nor have I ever made an edit with the IP. Then whenever I signed in with that name, the IP of the computer that I was using gets blocked as well. Now, granted that this name is light-hearted and silly, it's not insulting nor offensive. For their God's sake they allowed the username "Godless Liberal". This sort of preemptive blocking deserve a line or two in listing differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Bockbockchicken 08:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And under further review, it seems someone also blocked the username "Canadian" with the reason "idiot". Alright, I need to take five and calm down. (They also blocked "iluvjesus", who had zero contribution between account creation and deletion (same day), so it's not because of vandalism. No reason was given there) Did they even say that the account names have to be "serious" (as seen by them) anywhere during the account creation process? I haven't seen any. Bockbockchicken 08:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, just as a question, does the comment really add that much to the article? The article as stands already identifies that the Conservapedia site is run centrally with a central buereu controlling the expression of points of view on the site, and also controls the registration of user name process. Is this info needed for an encyclopedia article? IF you think it is, can't we just say *Conservapedia currently blocks x/y usernames registered? Isn't that verifiable, simple to understand and more... umm... encyclopediatic (invented word for this occasion). Just a thought from an outsider. --Brynic 12:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest the comment has value because Conservapedia trumpets how many users it has while including among those numbers many have been permanently blocked. While some have been blocked for vandalism, others have been blocked for disagreeing with the syspops, who have the authority to block anyone at the drop of a hat (check out how many comments there are on user talk pages regarding "accidental" blocks). MartinJoh00 17:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been blocked for stating that a translation from French in this article ( http://www.conservapedia.com/Claude_Monet ) was awful. The author, Joaquín Martínez who is also a sysop, contacted me suggesting that my criticism was dishonest and that it was a good translation. When I attempted to reply I found that I had been blocked for the following reasons Subtle vandal/troll/silly edits (Bye). They also claim that the LA Times has praised their article on Monet ( http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page ) which itself is disingenuous to say the least. Ulysses54 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Conservapedia's comment on the subject at [[4]] anywhere near the truth? Jackiespeel 17:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This was about the Scottish Parliament passing a proposal to breed Nessie and Morag. "By some coincidence" the page was corrected shortly after I made the comment. (I presume the Scottish Parliament would approve of being associated with an endangered species breeding programme.) Jackiespeel 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include a paragraph about how the sysops run a dictatorship over there I have a source; [5]. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 05:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There already is a mention of the influence of sysops and the founders in the criticisms section.

VanTucky

15:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is such a contentious one, and NPOV is especially important and difficult to maintain, I would like someone other than the contributer to verify that the source actually says what it says (registration is required).

15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not hard to sign up for an account. But if you don't want to, use mine. The username is [email protected] and the password is password . --Phirazo 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! will do.

VanTucky

17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Iain Thomson, writing in Information World Review, has written that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[19]Stephanie Simon, writing in the LA Times, confirms that editors from a site formed in opposition to Conservapedia, Rationalwiki, openly engage in "cyber-vandalism"; being responsible for creating parody articles and deliberately inserting false information and pornography into many articles.

I would edit this a bit. However, I'm a member at RationalWiki (and a perma-banned member at Conservapedia for daring to question a sysop over a Bible-related typo and the ban orgy connected to it), so there's a potential Conflict of Interest.

First of all, the "confirmation" makes it look like RationalWiki has been responsible for the vandalism wave in February. Main issues: The LA Times article does not make this connection at all. In fact, it states that RationalWiki was started after incidents like the Breast Cancer article had happened. Additionally, the World Review article is from a time when various bloggers picked up (and tore apart) Conservapedia, so it should be fairly hard to pinpoint the vandalism of that time to one source (that was only created months or so later).

Additionally, I would edit it to "that, among others, editors from a site formed " - especially since the source's pornography paragraph reads "interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere". --Sid 3050 14:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The article directly states that Rationalwiki takes credit for vandalism (not any particular time period though) in Conservapedia. There is already content in the article detailing that other vandals regularly attack Conservapedia, so the story is in Rationalwiki's admitted vandalism (including porn).

VanTucky

15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The LA Times article simply doesn't make the connection the Wiki article makes (with good reason). The Wiki article currently says that there was suspected subversion in February and then says that the LA Times "confirms" this by pointing at RationalWiki. This is fairly unfortunate phrasing at best.

First of all, the existence of RationalWiki does not confirm that some of the articles in February were parodies or vandalism. You're taking the existence of a site founded in April or so to confirm that entries made in February were vandalism? Additionally, RationalWiki members as a group are not "leftist subversives" (Okay, compared to Schlafly's view of "conservative", pretty much EVERYTHING is left, but eh.). Again, nothing in the LA Times says anything like that to back such a claim.

If anything, there should be a paragraph split after the first sentence of the paragraph to break the (accidentally?) implied link. There is no connection between the February events and RationalWiki, other than the fact that both focused on Conservapedia.

Then we could talk about how not all the vandalism examples there necessarily point at RationalWiki. It's (in my eyes) very dishonest (or badly phrased, which is why I made this section) to reduce "Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire" to "LA Times, reported that editors from a site formed in opposition to Conservapedia, Rationalwiki, openly engage in "cyber-vandalism"; being responsible for creating parody articles and deliberately inserting false information and pornography into many articles". --Sid 3050 15:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're omitting the key section that supports the passage.

“

After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And — by their own admission — engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.

”

Remember, the passage in Wikipedia exists to demonstrate that Rationalwiki was formed just to vandalize and critique Conservapedia, not to detail all the vandalism that goes on there. Other passages (such as the preceding one) make it clear that other lone vandals commit such acts, and even if it didn't the passage in no wayimplies or says that all vandalism comes from Rationalwiki. Stop trying to play down the facts for your POV. The suggestions by a Rationalwiki editor to water-down a cited encyclopedic passage are not going to be accepted as NPOV. Period.

VanTucky

16:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm openly disclosing my POV and only made suggestions here. I believe this is exactly what the Wikipedia guidelines suggest. And I'm not playing anything down (I freely admit that the LA Times article says RationalWiki members also vandalize the site, so your accusation is somewhat baseless), I'm just pointing out subtle quoting errors that create a wrong impression.

My points are:

1. The passage implicitly connects two completely independent events by quietly putting them next to each other. By now, this has been defused somewhat, but it still strikes me as odd.
2. The LA Times article does not say that RationalWiki did all of the things the article claims it did. It says that members from RationalWiki and elsewhere have "hit" Conservapedia and then lists examples of what "the vandals" (not RationalWiki in particular) did. The Wikipedia article DOES say that the editors from RationalWiki are "responsible for creating parody articles and deliberately inserting false information and pornography into many articles". This is not about me being from RationalWiki or not, it's simply about misquoting an article.

It's a bit like taking the phrase "Microsoft and Apple developed operating systems like Windows and OS X" and writing "Microsoft developed Windows and OS X" just because Apple had been mentioned elsewhere. The Wiki article simply attributes ALL listed examples of vandalism to one source despite the LA Times article saying something else. --Sid 3050 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me spell it out plainly for you. Sentence one: the LA Times identifies Rationalwiki as admittedly an organized blok in the vandalization of Conservapedia, and says that they are not alone in the vandalization. Sentence two: the vandals (including those identified as vandals by the preceding sentence, i.e. Rationalwiki) commit the following acts. Rationalwiki = vandal...these are what the vandals have done. Definition...declaration. It's simple English grammar. He wouldn't take the time to identify who the primary vandals he is discussing are and then repeat the declaration of who he is literally speaking of when he says vandals. That's repetitious. I'm sorry it's not literal enough for you to understand, but that's news-writing. When the writer sets the terms of who are vandals, and then follows up with what he has identified as vandals are doing then it is not inference to recognize he is saying Rationalwiki committed those acts. If you put up a blockquote with both sentences, it is the exact same meaning as the Wikipedia passage.

VanTucky

17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Sid is correct in pointing out that the L.A. Times does not clearly specify which acts were committed specifically by RationalWiki members. The argument I'm seeing in this previous post by VanTucky amounts to guilt by association-- i.e., because RationalWiki members are admitted vandals it is safe to attribute anything that is attributed to "vandals" solely to them. This is clearly erroneous.

siafu

17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I'm arguing that when the author identifies Rationalwiki as a member of the vandals he then identifies as committing those specific acts, then it is factually accurate to repeat that statement.

VanTucky

18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since you both don't like the current language, how about just simply using the following direct quote?

“

After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And — by their own admission — engage in acts of cyber-vandalism. Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire.

”

sound NPOV?

18:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a direct quote is actually a good idea here and solves the issue. Tmtoulouse 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it sums things up nicely and eliminates the potential problems with phrasing. --Sid 3050 19:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! Sheesh I dunno why I didn't propose that before all the discussion.

VanTucky

20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can simply go by the name and there claims. right wing perhaps. Conservative? That is certainly open to debate. Let'd either take out the claim or couch it in such a way that it notes the possibility that it is not conservative

Please remember to sign your talk posts with four tildes (~).

The idea that they are not as "conservative" as they claim is part of the Criticisms of Conservapedia already in place. We go by their stated goal and what the majority of reliable published sources mention them as being for the introduction.

VanTucky

23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"we" should be going by what is said about them not what they say about themselves . . . but whatever, you seem determined to keep the wording. So be it. Have fun.

"Conservapedia is a wiki-based encyclopedia project with articles written from an arguably??? socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism.[1][2][3] "

Would everyone rate this article as B-Class?

21:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Support Definitely comparable to the B-class article examples in the rating scale.

VanTucky

19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this could go in: [6] I'm afraid it's only a blog, but Schlafly's conflict of interest is probably notable. Opinions? (Opinions, that is, on whether it should be included here. Let's keep this page about this article.)

13:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest..? Isn't that the blog set up by the cybervandals referenced in the LA Times article? In other words, an attack site? I'd say they can't be considered a notable or reliable source. 89.240.226.59 18:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite what the LA Times says, RationalWiki and especially CP Column are not cybervandal sites. That would be fairly silly, considering that several Conservapedia sysops are active members there (with one of them even having applied for sysop position on RationalWiki, based on "seniority"). Some members did or do vandalism, but that's not the purpose of the site. The sites were created to discuss and criticize Conservapedia, and the point in this case is quite valid.

However, notability is an issue since press coverage for those sites is thin even when looking at things optimistically. This blog comes to similar conclusions, though. So it's not really an exclusive issue (even though notability for that blog may very well be an issue, too - no clue).

As much as I'd like to see it mentioned, I wouldn't say it's article material until some more notable source picks it up (I guess the same goes for the "abortion + breast cancer" issue that is marginally touched in the LA Times, even though it doesn't make the connection to Schlafly's "Had an abortion? Call an attorney." thing - Check Conservapedia's article for more info on how Schlafly might have a special interest in playing up the link and in shutting out Dr. Lipson. Oh, the woes of Original Research). --Sid 3050 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we'll have to wait until it exits the blogosphere and becomes real news, if it ever does. I believe that, currently, blogs don't count as reliable sources.

Totnesmartin

19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As the author of the blog in question, I agree fully with Totnesmartin here. Blogs are only very rarely a reliable source, as they they tend to be biased almost by definition. That said, I have to deny the accusation by mr. Anonymous IP just above. The Conservapedia Column has been set up by myself personally, not by RationalWiki, and I am most certainly not a cybervandal. --Lanfranc 21:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone, let's quit with the edit warring for now and discuss this thing. I think, that as Rationalwiki doesn't have it's own article or any other appropriate place to link it, and it is significantly mentioned in the article, it deserves to be linked.

17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not a criteria for EL, the article discusses the site and the site provides "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Tmtoulouse 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

and those are NPOV reviews are they? If it is significantly mentioned in the article then it needs to be an inline citation and mentioned as part of the references and viewed in that context. I don't seen any benefit in pointing our readers to their homepage as a EL. Seems to be the only reason to link to it is so they people have a backdoor to link to NPOV stuff that wouldn't make it's way onto the article here. And I speak as someone who had great fun adding all sorts of shit to conservapedia articles and think it's a disgrace of a site. --Fredrick day 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A NPOV is not a criteria for external links, actually thats one of the purposes of ELs to provide POV. There are usually "pro" and "con" ELs on most controversial articles. Tmtoulouse 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

and what about the restriction on open wikis? do you feel it meets that requirement? --Fredrick day 18:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an exception made "for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject" and rationalwiki is a subject of the page. Tmtoulouse 18:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

that's a nice trick you try there - in one paragraph, you try and change the policy from THE subject to A subject. --Fredrick day 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So your whole argument comes down to "the" versus "a"? Tmtoulouse 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all but it's doesn't mean I'm not going to comment on wikilawyering when I see it. There is a significant difference between "the subject of the article" = Conservapedia and "a subject" = anything mentioned in the article. The policy talks about THE subject (the entity the article is about), it does not talk about A subject (an entity mention in an article about something else). The difference is pretty clear. --Fredrick day 20:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The section you sight is for links normally avoided, there is not blatant prohibition. The site is covered in the article, there is no corresponded wikipedia link, it provides appropriate material for an EL that is not possible to include in the article. I think it should be clear that it belongs. Tmtoulouse 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What appropriate material?

like this

"Some people that believe in Nostradamus's prophecies believe that Andrew Schlafly is Mabus.Nostradamus was known to jumble up the names in his quatrains to prevent the wrong people from reading all the valuable information. People that study Nostradamus's quatrains have figured out that Mabus is a jumbled up form of Andrew Schlafly.[1] They get the M from the W (in Andrew) flipped upside down. The A comes from the first letter in Andrew. The b comes from the d just flipped around. The U comes from the upside down n. Finally, the S comes from the first letter in Schlafly.

or maybe this?

It's mollified by the knowledge that a Wikipedia-like site can only thrive with a relatively free exchange of ideas and some tolerance for vandals, hoaxers, and crackpots, and the gang of beady-eyed zealots running CP are going to stifle it to death while thinking they're 'protecting' it.

Yes this is clearly a high-quality link. --Fredrick day 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheery picking is fun. You obviously have some sort of bone to pick and at this point its COI for me to add the link back in, hopefully others will come by and add it back in. Tmtoulouse 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Cherry-picking? The first is taken from their article on Andrew Schlafly and the second from their article on Conversapedia - two things, I'd expect to find appropriate material on if the link is to provide additional information of the sort that would match a featured article (or whatever the wording is) - do you honestly think that material is of that quality? Yes I have a bone to pick - I don't think that rationalwiki is a high quality resource and should not be linked to. --Fredrick day 21:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

hopefully others will come by and add it back in. Why hopefully?, you are already canvessing offsite for meatpuppets to do just that. --Fredrick day 21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a range of articles, that vary in quality, [7]. I have outlined all the points and do not feel you have made a strong case at all. You obviously feel the same about me, I am backed in a corner since WP policy forbids me from really doing much with the article at this point. You will win by default if someone else dose not come along who feels similar to me. So I guess I will just wait and see. Tmtoulouse 21:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

well before the meatpuppets arrive and just start reverting the link back in - which of the conservapedia article do you think is of the highest quality? is it this one? or this one? or maybe this one? An external link should be something of good quality - are you really suggesting articles like that enchance our coverafe of this subject? --Fredrick day 21:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No meatpuppets will show up simply to revert the link back into the article, I will stand against that act, I was encouraging others who might have some say to come over and have their say. You are attacking more than just the EL link in this article. But whatever, like I said you win by default for now. I am going to bow out of this two-person tug-of-war since I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Tmtoulouse 21:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Trent = pwnt. 89.240.226.59 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about this as a quality resource? The renus 13:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty good but what's it to do with Conservapedia? This is my position - rationalwiki should be added by an inline citation because it is mentioned in the article (this is us saying this is mentioned in conjunction with conservapedia), Rationalwiki should not be added as an external link (because that would be us saying it is a high quality source on this matter - and it's clearly not). --Fredrick day 13:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The lack of ID in academia is one of conservapedia's pet peeves and is extremely relevant to the whole issue (aside from being indicative of the persecution mindset at conservapedia). IMO rationalwiki is a high quality source as it has documented a lot of the "facts" and "science" present in conservapedia (i too have COI issues here) and - especially - the treatment of "liberal" content and editors on the site. The renus 14:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

But once again, you link just takes me to a category list that allows me to access articles such as this, this. Are you honestly telling me that those are high quality articles? It's a serious question that I never got an answer about the last time I asked it. --Fredrick day 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I linked to a category so you could get a complete idea of the type of resource that rationalwiki is. No, these are not high-quality There are serious articles there are, shall we say, tongue-in-cheek articles and both are fairly obvious to the reader. Does the existence of comedy negate the value of worthy information? A combination of both can be seen here. Does this documentation become invalidated because of humourous commentary? My point being that yes there are flippancies but there are many serious articles, it is a shame to let these cloud the serious issue. See this article and it's parent category (which will most likely contain comedy articles also). (again, i have a COI regarding rationalwiki as i am a user there and have been banned from conservapedia)The renus 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest we view the article about Andrew Schlafly the founder of conservapedia? Since someone we link from here would expect to find additional information on. --Fredrick day 16:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if we are declaring COI - I should point out that I have been banned from Conservapedia for adding flith (although my original bit of vandalism is still there in a prominent article so much for proof-reading). --Fredrick day 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Andrew Schlafly article is obviously comedy. However, by exploring the site further Andy's actions on conservapedia are well-documented.The renus 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromise time

While the irony of turning the CP talk page into a defense of rationalwiki and its purpose is sweetly ironic for me, I don't see it helping much. I will only offer this one defense...one does not have to be serious in order to make a serious point.

Now what can we do to reach a compromise so we can put this issue to bed? EL is out for now, but how would you feel about just hyper-linking the first mention of rationalwiki in the article to its homepage? Tmtoulouse 16:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Never - my forces are ready to nuke the wikipedia server location from space before that occurs. oh wait, they've told me they need to go watch the telly, go on then I don't have a problem with that - as I see that as just saying "this site exists and has been mentioned in conjunction with this matter" rather than the appearance of approval that I think EL tends to give. --Fredrick day 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done.Tmtoulouse 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As this appears to occur intermittently it should be mentioned somewhere in the text.

Has anyone counted the number of books actually used as references by Conservapedia (when it is up)?

Jackiespeel 17:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• It mentions on the Editor's Guide [8] that the site may be locked down during nighttime hours in the US. That may be the reason, but someone more familiar with the site might need to explain this tendency. No idea about the books though. Ripberger 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The lockdown is a new limitation of edit rights on Conservapedia. By now, this is the rights situation, from what I remember/gather:

• Editing at all is only allowed to registered members
• Only sysops may move pages
• Only sysops and "trusted" members (who are in the "Upload" user rights group) may upload images - images are also quickly protected to prevent image-replacement vandalism.
• When the majority of sysops are offline (in the US timezones: at night), the site may be "locked down". In that time, only sysops and members of the "edit" user group are allowed to edit. I'm not sure if this affects all pages or only mainspace articles.
• Add to that the articles that are protected for a long time (because of various silly reasons) and which non-sysops will rarely get to edit directly.

Needless to say that (1) this presents a very wide gap between sysops and normal users (and don't even get me started on the "normal" sysop rights on Conservapedia, which can be summed up as

carte blanche) and that (2) there are no notable sources that point these things out... yet. So it's just a quick info summary for those who are interested. --Sid 3050

23:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant in the sense of "the usp being unavailable."

Random note/Reaction and Criticism Update

Conservapedia got mentioned in a bit on The Daily Show, specifically its article on homosexuality. I'd point this out there, but it seems editing is restricted to logged-in accounts and new accounts are disabled (otherwise I would point it out there instead of here). I guess that's one way to counteract vandalism. Nifboy 04:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Tom Flanagan quote, are there perhaps criticisms by other Conservatives that could be included as well? Ericster08 02:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we include the criticism about a Pro-American Bias, for example, stating that Mexico is located "directly beneath the United States?"

How does running away from even a perceived bias solve the problem? Let's say for argument sake that Wikipedia leans to the left. Well how does breaking away and forming a conservative answer to Wikipedia create any less bias? All you're going to have is an encyclopedia with a conservative bias. Wouldn't it make more sense to dig in your heels and stay on the "liberal" Wikipedia to balance the perspective on ONE website? Diverging onto one direction does nothing but add to the ridiculous "RED-BLUE" divide in this country. The Righties should stay on Wikipedia so that there's an equal balance between Left and Right. Ericster08 05:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate, chances are that the editors of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as completely unfixable - they perceive that the liberal bias runs so deep that it would be less effort to just start over. Alternatively, they believe that the prescence of any liberal viewpoint is undesirable, and the requirement that Wikipedia include such views for the purposes of neutrality runs counter to their objective. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good point. Ericster08 02:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So the Registration is now closed, I quote:

“

To be allowed to create accounts in this Wiki you have to log in and have the appropriate permissions.

”

I used the create an account URL address of index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup&returnto=Main_Page ignoring the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ and then added it to http://www.conservapedia.org to get: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin&type=signup&returnto=Main_Page. I find this funny and this is why I changed the registration to "Invite Only".--WhereAmI 06:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Registration seems to be no longer closed, I was able to create a working account without problems. 137.250.121.1 12:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup it's open again. Maybe they don't allow people to create accounts at night? I'll find out tonight, then.--WhereAmI 18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be open but it bans your IP adress upon registration so you can't edit anything on the site. - LordofToasts June 29, 2007

This is true. I suppose it is approve only? I am changing the Wikipedia page to reflect this as "Approve only".--WhereAmI 23:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked as a "Troll" without any edits yet. I assume this happened to everyone else?--WhereAmI 00:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Wikipedia kinda likes for things to be cited. So really, it ought to say nothing at all. At any rate, my office mate created a user name about an hour ago and made a user page containing nothing but the

Apostle's Creed and he was blocked without explanation (with autoblock, so I can't get in either, not that I would be overly inclined to). So I don't know if "invite only" might be "you can register, but not for long". --BigΔT

00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, let us leave this at nothing for registration. We can't keep up with their methods of registering.--WhereAmI 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone revert this? 4.253.40.211 15:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism it may be, but nonetheless not distant from the truth.

Tourskin

06:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering, should there be a section pointing out the obvious contradictions, such as the ACLU page, where they begin discussing the Anti-Christian Bias, then cite examples where the ACLU goes to court representing Christians.... or would that just be petty and non official research?

It seems like huge portion of this article focuses on the difference between them and us, perhaps that should be a different article (

00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think it's pretty essential to the main article, as not only is it in basic structure an off-shoot of Wikipedia, but ideologically it was a reaction. So a comparison is good to have. Besides, this article doesn't really meet

(talk)

00:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enuff.

Cameron Nedland

01:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - Conservapedia definitely seems to define itself in comparison to Wikipedia. So the treatment seems appropriate. WilyD 14:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Besides, by describing Conservapedia, a comparison is naturally made since we are on Wikipedia.

Tourskin

06:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That should be irrelevant. The main article text should not give any clue that the reader is reading Wikipedia. Anyway, as was said above, this Nonservapedia exists by the grace of Wikipedia. By the way I pray God that it may disappear soon. What's next, Liberapedia? "John Kerry is the current president of the United States in exile." "Iraq is a territory of the United States, mainly occupied for the purpose of gaining cheap oil." Wikipedia can be - and is - used by people all over the world who speak english, not just in the US, but anywhere in the world. Conservapedia can only be used by people who believe in Jerry Falwell. Those Conservapedia wierdos really seem to think America equals the entire world, and that the world (=the US) is divided into two camps, liberals and conservatives. It's really a simple world they live in... Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 17:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. But that Conservapedia is a reaction to Wikipedia, and compares itself to Wikipedia, makes a natural format of any encyclopaedic article like this. In ten sentences if you put "Conservapedia" into it's search box, the word "Wikipedia" shows up three times. It defines itself in the comparison.

Incidentally, there are already lots of Wiki-encyclopaedias that have some agenda. Creationopedia , for instance. Cheers, WilyD 18:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The website is currently being raided by EBworld and a few other places. It's not very successful due to the disabling of registration, but still, good to see it get what it deserves. NoMercyX 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (whoops, forgot to sign my post)

I couldn't agree anymore my mystery friend. That website is pathetic, its giving Christian thought a bad name. And Assyrians did not invade mesopatamia or conquer babalyon in 1000 BC. Yes it was me who put that up there. Well it seems like the guy has to conserve what he has.

Tourskin

06:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it is eBaum's? A lot of raiders claim to be from there when they are not (I know

Habbo Hotel) --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs

) 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my naivety, but what's a "raid"?

Scarian^Talk

04:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A raid it is when one online community trolls another, en masse. It is also known as an invasion. The trolls will often use their online community for coordinating a raid. Raiders have been known to take down entire sites due to cracking,

DDoS, or simple traffic overload. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs

) 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica does "raids" like this all the time, such as in the August 2005 raid of WikiFur or the 2006 raid of deviantART. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 01:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Why is this article up for deletion? I cannot seem to find any reason for it? And there has been no comment on the matter from

02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Dramatica doesn't do the raids you dumbass. Dramatica just records them and provides links. EBaumsworld does the raiding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.42.73.86 (talk) 00:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Meh, keep this article on Conservapedia. Conservapedia is so bad, it actually makes Wikipedia look good. Mindraker 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia it has video games, cartoons (mainly Japan and American made), medicine, TV, movies, people etc. The name Conservapedia seem like it would mainly have info on conservitive people and what conervs. would like. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 03:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• They have a variety of articles, although much more limited and typically shorter than in Wikipedia. For example, they do have a Category:Video games, but it only has 17 articles (with no subcategories). Their article on Mario is only 4 sentences long. --Metropolitan90 01:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"it only has 17 articles" - so it's not all bad then!

Totnesmartin

22:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This edit removed what I think is an important point, that perhaps is just not in the right place. I think this point needs to be made in reference to the conservapedia copyright section, in that there is a lot of wikipedia material that is on CP and it could be a problem. Tmtoulouse 01:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I removed the sentence which said that "Wikipedia permits copying of its content only by sites that have adopted the GFDL license" because the article already states that Conservapedia does not allow material copied from Wikipedia. Ideally, there should be no conflict over copying of content from WP to CP, since CP doesn't want any WP material. On the other hand, if CP policy is being violated by having CP incorporate content from WP, that would also be a violation of the GFDL, which might require the Wikimedia Foundation to raise objections in support of the copyright and license of Wikipedia.

However, I am not familiar enough with CP to know whether they are, in fact, incorporating WP content and thus violating WP's copyright and license, nor do I know whether they have taken action to delete such content if and when it was ever brought to their attention.

Per

03:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

While you are correct that this should be focused on the site itself, you're incorrect in assuming that a large amount of comparative information is inappropriate. Since its inception and in every thing it does, Conservapedia defines itself in opposition to Wikipedia. And when I say everything, I mean everything. And every single news article that has significant coverage of the site does so via a comparison to Wikipedia. Thus, this extensive encyclopedic treatment of Conservapedia in comparison is vital to a proper structuring of the content in accordance with the source material.

(talk)

03:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's reasonable to include some facts about Wikipedia to provide context in the Conservapedia article, but we need to make sure we don't go too far in that direction. --Metropolitan90 04:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where else to put this, because I couldn't find a place in

to list pages that violate Wikipedia's copyright, but the following articles on Conservapedia are just a few of potentially many which are copied (at least partially) from Wikipedia without attribution, and without using the GFDL:

• Ted Stevens at [9] - everything but the "Criticisms" section
• American Football Conference at [10]
• National Football Conference at [11]
• Financial Analyst at [12]
  - the middle 2 paragraphs at least
• Intelligence agency at [13] - the first paragraph

--SteveDeans 17:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also point you towards the article on the Qu'ran/Koran which has been cut and pasted complete with footnote references which are all now broken. V-Bede 13:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a Siteadmin at Conservapedia, we will be pulling any wikipedia copyvios on sight.

Dagomar

21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've notices a distinct parallel between aspects of Wikipedia and Conservapedia, most notably the name of the Conservapedia "commandments" (like the ten commandments) seems to be based on the "five pillars" of Wikipedia (similar to the Five Pillars of Islam). Two questions. 1: Is this significant enough to be put into the article? 2: Would it need some sort of citation? Calgary 03:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see our policy on

original research. I don't think it's suitable. WLU

00:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Syops only pages

It seems Conservapedia has a rather large amount of protected pages. Also, from what I can tell some people (like me) have be blocked from the wiki for simply stating there belife. Tesfan 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. I searched many different people, places, ideas, ect., and then tried to edit the pages, but it seems that all are blocked. I couldn't even edit the "Discussion" pages. I also tried to create pages, but apparently they blocked that too. I to create pages for obscure random bands, mainly because that was the only thing I could think of that someone wouldn't have already thought of. Maybe its my account name, or relative newness? Grizzedram

Their membership system is similar to

Citezendium, where all users who sign up for an account have to first go through a verification process by a sysop who would upgrade them to editor status. --w^{L<speak·check}

> 07:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Note

I thought it would be interesting to note, even though I refuse to add it to the article (more of an FYI), that Conservapedia is blocked by all Department of Defense computers, Wikipedia is not. I thought this was a little humorous. Crmadsen 01:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, no its not. Not that I ever do, but I can access CP from my Army work computer. Jrssr5 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never knowlingly added nonsense to Wikipedia, but if ever there was an article that deserved it, it's this one. I'm sure the people at Conservapedia mean well, at least in their minds, but it really is sad. This article should lead with "Conservapedia is a comedy parody of Wikipedia." I genuinely thought Conservapedia was a joke. I hope they put a stork image in the intercourse article (if they ever make one). Perhaps "limbs" could be substituted for "legs" as they did in Victorian times for women's legs. There is plenty in Wikipedia which bothers me, but most of that is because it's the truth, or at least an attempt at the truth! Hopefully Conservapedia doesn't get very far. I shudder to think that there will be kids who eat chicken "mammary glands" for supper. Anyone care to comment? Jimaginator 14:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal action is threatened twice on the Conservapedia Commandments page. The first is a warning against "obscenity", which will supposedly be punished under 18 USC § 1470. Obscenity is not defined by Conservapedia or by Title 18 of the US Code. The possible reasons for this range from simple oversight to the discouraing of vandals with a form of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I find this to be problematic, but not nearly as problematic as the second warning: "vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030." 18 USC § 1030 regards fraud in connection with computers. I'm guessing the basis for this is the idea that vandalism qualifies as "damage". I am not a lawyer, but unless vandalism on Conservapedia means something very different than it does on Wikipedia, I'm certain that the warning shows a profound ignorance of law or it's just disingenuous FUD.

I'd like to see this under differences in editorial philosophies. Can someone tell me if I'm wrong or off base about any of the above or if none of this information should be considered encyclopedic? 72.154.101.7 03:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, thank you for proposing any controversial additions beforehand on this talk page. That's something many Wikipedia users fail to do.

As to the issue, the threshold for inclusion of content is whether it is

(talk)

03:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed (through the conservapedia list of examples of bias in wikipedia), that the bit about conservapedia's licence not being copyleft being "an issue which has led to some concerns", is sourced to an article that only give Jimbo Wales, as the one raising the concerns. Do we have a source for a more neutral party raising concerns? If not, then I think we should attribute the concerns to Jimbo Wales. Silverfish 11:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be attributed anyway, that it's to Jimbo isn't a problem in my mind - he counts as an expert on copyleft and on-line encyclopedia's to me. WLU 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with quoting Jimbo, but I was more pondering if other people not connected with Wikipedia have made similar comments. Anyway, I've now including the appropriate Jimbo quote in the article. Silverfish 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"On December 30th of 2006, the site's main page stated that the project had 1950 articles. On December 31st, this number jumped to 14,900.[11]. The figure has stayed the same on the main page through July of 2007.[12]" This is not true at all. The site did not claim to have 14,900 articles from December to July. Ostap R

• I think I know the source of the confusion. The 31 December version of the main page used a template AboutC, rather than including the article figure in the main page itself. See the link to the template here: [14]. The history of the changes of the template are listed in the template's history, not the history of the main page. If you look at the history of the template, you can see how they updated the article count over time, but if you look at the main page history for December 31, you would get the current version of the template, not the version displayed on December 31. Basically, I agree with you, the info you mention is wrong, and the above is why I think whoever added this info got things wrong. Silverfish 16:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it and for the explanation. Ostap R

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10