Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 5

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 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)
 * a) It claims it is Conservative and Christian. I think it lives up to that claim fairly well. b) It claims to be a mainstream encyclopedia, and one that could serve as a primary information source. In that, objectively it fails. There is not one unbiased outside source that would make that claim. c) It claims to be vibrant and growing, a new model for the Encylopdia of The Future. Alexa says otherwise. 70.21.231.66 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article does not hold Conservapedia up as the omnipotent source of encyclopedic information. Rightfully so, since no such claim is citeable. Conservapedia is a new website and maturing. Wikipedia's Conservapedia article will also grow with Conservapedia. the content of this article changes as Conservapedia changes. we have limited steadfast content we are able to provide at this early stage of Conservapedia's maturation. always remember, Conservapedia was created as a Wikipedia alternative by the Mr. Shafly. παράδοξος 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC) hagerman bot sux

My point was that six months is a reasonable time for any organic/developing website to establish itself, iron out teething problems etc - and the process should be ongoing.

Also - can people be consistent in spelling Mr S's name. Jackiespeel 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that this entry should be kept short and to the point. Don't feed the beast. Just handle the description of CPedia like you would any other website. Honestly, it's not worth the trouble to do otherwise. CPedia is a Fundamentalist community that should live or die by its own merits. It disappoints me that its opponents have gone to the trouble of vandalizing it with satirical entries and bickering all over the talk pages of its "hot" topics with sarcastic comments. All this drama is, frankly, embarrassing and should be above us. Give them space and let them create their own encyclopedia. It means less Fundamentalist pressure on Wikipedia if they have their own sanctuary. Perhaps it is inaccurate for them to present themselves as conservatives, and perhaps it is unfair for them to label Wikipedia as liberal. But you know what? I don't give a shit and I'm tired of hearing about it. It's a tempest in a teapot. Quit editorializing and masking your opinions with cherry-picked citations. Get above that, and stay there. The readers of this website need calm judgment on our parts, for us to fully provide our service. Personally, I would not shed a fucking tear if the article ended after listing where CPedia differs from Wikipedia, and I don't think the Internet would either. Thank you. Stonedonkey 08:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Unfortunately, they fixed it That is too bad. I would have LMAO it I had see that. --Art8641 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

block policy
Could the block policy be referenced: ?

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).


 * Yes, as per Locks and Blocks above, it seems that no less than six people have now been blocked permanently by one sysop for criticising his Greek (!). [] It's a cyber-bloodbath out there! (Follow the Archives back to see the rest of the story, as he's using archiving to silence all dissent.) --PL 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The block policy is crazy. Attempting to be NPOV (e.g. using entirely non-partisan sources) is considered "trolling." What the hell. — Emiellaiendiay 17:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is crazy. After several months of non-bothersome liberalism, I was blocked for 'betrayal' when I replaced "Mitt Romney" with "romney" (a type of goat). Oh well. Worth it! Conservapedia User:GodlessLiberal 03:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The block policy is absolutely unreasonable and ridiculous. I was blocked within 5 minutes of registering for the username 'Commie'. Most uncalled for. They are essentially willing to block anyone that does not adhere to their unreasonable conservative extremes. Possibly the most extremist, biased and ridiculous site I've seen in awhile.


 * The "blood bath" is far worse here than it is at Conservapedia. Conservapedia keeps a stronger leash on vandalism and efforts to create bias in articles. News stories are now popping up ridiculing Wikipedia in the worst possible terms. Jtpaladin 23:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The rate of bloacking seems to have escalated in recent days - 500 blocked accounts in just the last 12 days. This probably isn't the right place, but there are users who are smart enough to avoid blocking but still play games with CP.  I've copied the following from the User Page of "Auld Nick" who eventually seems to have got bored with not being caught and confeesed.  They've blocked him but forgotten to remove his User Page for now, so here it is for prosterity. Mralph72 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)



I originally came here in order to indulge in some mischief. Noticing the experiences of others I realised that blatant vandalism or parody wouldn't work and a block would soon follow. Instead I decided to let sysops do the job for me. They being the ultimate source of facts here, see Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks:

Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked. Note: Their (sysops) instructions, as to Conservapedia policy [...] are to be followed, that means when a sysop decides it is so, it is so. My nefarious plot is simply to find pages which seem reasonably balanced and factual and if they:

mention something that makes the evolution look true I report it to Conservative so that he can go and trash the page with his creation science [sic] views. mention something that is older that 6000 years I report it to Philip J. Rayment so that he can go and trash the page with his Young Earth Creationist views. don't accept the Bible as reliable historical and scientific source I report it to Karajou so that he can go and trash the page with his literal interpretation of the Bible. present a left-leaning person or organisation as balanced and sane I report it to RobS so that he can go and trash the page with his Mccarthyesque enthusiasm. present homosexuals as balanced and sane I can report it to most any sysop (Ed Poor is the resident expert on the subject -though he may be up to mischief too) so that they can fill it with their homophobic bile. After the above have edited, anyone attempting to return pages to a reasonably balanced and factual state is likely to be blocked by the sysop who has decided to make that particular article their personal blog. TK puts even Uncle Joe to shame with the fervor of his blocks. Many competent editors find themselves "deleted" and lost to the project.

I also categorized a large number of pages so that those in the know could easily find the spoof entries or facts. Have Fun.

Auld Nick



Copyright policy
Conservapedia now has a copyright policy. G e  o. Talk to me 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * where is it? I'll have to check from home later as they block racist sites at my workplace. --Fredrick day 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Copyright. They seem to be going for a copycenter style license (as opposed to Wikipedia's copyleft licensing). I'll rewrite the section on licensing. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia availability
The website appears to be presently unavailable - is this a temporary glitch? Jackiespeel 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't had a problem accessing it today. Jrssr5 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely temporary, I've had no problem accessing it since the peak demand of late Feb. - early Mar. 07. (Ironically, I couldn't save this on my first try because WP was jammed! )Huw Powell 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * there does seem to be some ongoing issue - the site is generally unavailable to me from certain IP addresses for certain periods of the day (while being available from other ip addresses) - some form of DNS issue? other users have replicated this problem - however it's not something we can put in the article --Fredrick day 21:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Difficulty in logging onto Conservapedia as a new user
Has anyone else encountered difficulties in logging onto Conservapedia as a new user? Alan Liefting 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can apparently only log in during certain hours, because they want to discourage non-North Americans from joining. See above.70.21.244.148 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * haha, what a joke, what about left wing editors in south america? I'm not saying they are all left-wing, but LOL Family Guy Guy 00:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you source this claim? America has a reputation as a 24 hour society and the internet certainly is. Family Guy is right that those of in Latin America, who have no loyalty to the US, are in the same time zone. I do remember reading that consevapedia were looking for admins in non-American parts of the world to police the encyclopedia during quite (American) hours which seems to contradict this. And what about all the Americans fighting in Iraq and other far flung places, SqueakBox 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

New Source
Looks like there is a lot of potential here Tmtoulouse 05:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just love the final comment: 'Neither work is as reliable of course as the Enclopedia [sic] Britannica.' At the last count, its brief article on Nostradamus, for example, contained at least four major errors (compare the Wikipedia version)... --PL 09:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * good reference, tmtoulouse! makes me think about what i am doing here as wikipedian. what makes the privately held Encyclopædia Britannica the ultimate encyclopedia authority or better than Conservapedia or Wikipedia? παράδοξος 01:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Beside the simplistic nature of his final statements, his mispelling of "Enclopedia" pretty much sticks a fork in the article. The guy was doing pretty well for a bit, but stumbled at the end.  Oh well.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Policing of Conservapedia
The policing of the site is self-evidently poor - obviously spoof articles about major subjects such as http://www.conservapedia.com/Claude_Debussy have stood uncorrected for nearly a month. I can't think of a way to say this in the article that doesn't sound like OR, though. Kisch 00:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll fix it. I think some person mixed him up with that other famous Claude, Mssr. Monet. Huw Powell 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A priceless article. I note that their main page makes the baseless claim that Shakespeare was born on August 23, as well. They can't get the facts straight even when no issues of ideology are involved. - Nunh-huh 00:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally like this quote from the George W. Bush article. "'Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well.'"
 * Do the editors even realize when someone is making fun of them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.44.119 (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Sometimes they do. The sysops basically spend all their time deleting vandals and their products (pretty quickly, I think) and editing articles for ideological purity or weirdness, but there is a loosely organized cabal out there (no way I'm providing a link here!) whose members keep signing back up, not so much to outright vandalize the site, but to be a continual thorn in the sides of the people who run it. Huw Powell 00:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * They seem not to have noticed all the evident ideological booby-traps laid for them by user 'Petrus', either!! --PL 08:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a site that needs far more thorns so as to prick them to awareness that their reality is a mere construct (and a poorly constructed one at that), their truth a mere fantasy, and that they are creating a self-parody. What one assumes to be a spoof is very frequently an earnest effort on their part to write an article from a "conservative" standpoint.  The whole thing is rather silly and juvenile.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:14, 25 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 its editorial insistence on getting facts right. There is no NPOV at Conservapedia, so an effort to get at the truth is appreciated. (Like Wikipedia, when the truth is not known - at least not agreed upon by contributing editors - both sides of the story are given.) Unlike Wikipedia, when a POV opposite to the Conservative viewpoint is presented, it is permitted to remain in the article - if properly labeled. The classic formula X said Y about Z is (becoming) the norm there.

Less than 48 articles are currently protected. The 'flagship' article Theory of evolution is anti-Materialistic, would would not be permitted at Wikipedia. It highly favors Creationism, too. Several contributors have been clamoring for this article unprotection, but as they have no organized plan and have not submitted useful content nearly all their work has been reverted. I seem to be an exception to this! I guess my 5 years at Wikipedia, learning how to work collaboratively to craft a sort of 'consensus' on an article, are paying off.

Conservapedia is not the enemy, even though A. Schlafly has fired a few shots across Wikipedia's bow (so to speak). It's a haven for the rejected ideas which NPOV (as interpreted and applied here) chosen to censor. --Uncle Ed 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why my experience is any less relevant than any of the other user stories on this page. Please don't delete it again. --Uncle Ed 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it wasn't removed, it was archived. Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 3. It is off-topic, though.  --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 02:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, your experience seems to be at odds with reality. There's no insistance on "getting facts right" at Conservapedia: where facts and ideology conflict, ideology rules. One need only look at the Hepatitis B vaccine article or the editorial masquerading as an article on the "Harvard abortion study" to see that. - Nunh-huh 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Archived under fantasy? Ed's take on Con-pedia is so absurd as to be risible.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pride often comes before a fall, they say. Odd nature 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, other viewpoints are often classified as falsehoods, even if they are mentioned. Of course, I managed to get myself blocked there after a few days, so maybe I just don't understand the system . --Liπus the Turbogeek(contact me) 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "its editorial insistence on getting facts right .... The 'flagship' article Theory of evolution is anti-Materialistic, would would not be permitted at Wikipedia. It highly favors Creationism...". This is a contradiction in terms. Either you're interested in the facts or you're interested in Creationism. Favouring something with zero evidence and all that... Macgruder 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are #numerous# errors and bizarre comments - to take two examples Milton Keynes the place is conflated with John Maynard Keynes at [] (which refers to the politician Sir Stafford Crisp, while the Huns were "unkind to Christians" at [].
 * Errr....that's a spoof article about Milton Keynes on Constipated - sorry - Conservapedia. I live in MK and know about its history. The article is 100% spoof. 81.129.15.45 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is frequent visible bias (as distinct from "the US Conservative viewpoint on xxx is...") - see [] as an example, and despite the Commandment that references be given most articles do not (calling up 20 entries on the "random article" button produced only four with references). Jackiespeel 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "random page" experiment is very interesting. For me it yielded this gem (now fixed, but many more can be discovered through the same process. I suspect most Conservapedians won't know why it's funny. - Nunh-huh 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Not to be confused with Loofah". Ha Ha Ha. Alas, they got rid of that line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.44.119 (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, they use our observations to try to tidy the things they can't spot themselves up, but since they simultaneously pass anything on vaccination, medicine, or the age of the earth through their Conservodistortion lens before writing about it, there's no need to worry that there will be any shortage of future examples. - Nunh-huh 17:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The protected pages are the ones to watch to get a view of what they consider to be good articles, with no possibility of vandalism - like this one on deceit, which essentially made lying a Liberal monopoly and then closed the page to any comeback. Kisch 01:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Using Wikipedia/this page to trawl for articles that need correcting (and the Huns are still unkind to Christians) would seem to the casual reader to be a violation their rule on Wikipedia - or am I misunderstanding it? Jackiespeel 21:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is interesting. They call the Yankees the greatest Baseball team that ever existed. Don't they realize the Yankees are a bunch of immoral liberals. I mean they come from New York for God's sake. Honestly their almost as bad as the San Francisco Giants. Someone should knock some sense into them.151.198.44.119 02:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And their entry for bigotry at [] seems to imply they accept evolution.

The "ten clicks on the Random Article button" is a good way of testing the sensibility of a Wiki in general. Jackiespeel 21:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * a few samples of how amusing consevapedia is (meh, why not?):
 * -today's cover: "Question: why don't feminists consider Joan of Arc to be a hero? Hint: she was a devout Christian." (obviously, we all know how feminists are nothing but devil worshipers)
 * "Today abortion is a billion-dollar industry[2][3] in the United States" (featured in the second line of the article)

'':"A self professed group of "media tarts"[Citation Needed] who claim to promote Animal Rights, Vegetarianism & other dubious causes through the use of controversial propaganda[1][2]& bad science[Citation Needed], and regarded by an increasing number of people of causing animals more harm than good.[Citation Needed]


 * Also known to fund convicted arsonists and a phoney physicians group."'' (PETA article, no mention whatsoever of what the hell they do)


 * -from the Pinochet article:
 * "...as he fought and defeated communist opponents in Chile..." (actually he executed and disapeared many of them, less than 50 militars died from attacks of left-wing groups)
 * "free market reforms in Chile in the 1970s that resulted in lower inflation and an economic boom from 1976 to 1979" (in reality those were the worst years of the dictatorship economicly)
 * "He also started one of the first private pension accounts pension systems in the world, which has been highly successful"("successful" only in Chile, it has failed miserably everywhere else)
 * the article follows with what could be described as a bi-polar article, featuring many odd aditions of his human rights violations:
 * "During his time in power over 3,000 people were killed or vanished.[1] In addition, over a quarter million Chileans were arrested. Universities were purged, books burned, and rival political parties banned. Thousands fled the country out of fear of the secret police, which routinely tortured citizens" (all true, yet highly leftist for an article who just declared he was the savior of chile)
 * "Pinochet is said to be responsible for the death of 3,200 of his opponents [4] One of the thousands arrested and murdered by Pinochet's forces was songwriter and musician Victor Jara, who was tortured over a period of four days and then executed shortly after the coup" (it says it again after a few lines... good work).
 * (no mention whatsoever of the riggs account scandal)
 * -from the Allende article:
 * "Whether he was "democratically elected" has been hotly debated ever since" (in reality there is no such thing as a "debate" in Chile about wether or not he was elected democraticly)
 * "Allende instituted a plan called "La vía chilena al socialismo" which lead to widespread disruption of the Chilean economy" (overly simplistic!)
 * "The media wrote extensively of his failures" (actually the rightist media wrote extensively about his failures, all of them recieved financial backing by the CIA, as revealed by declasified files)


 * If you thought wikipedia was somewhat unreliable (wikipedias biggest criticism), you obviously havent seen what a mess conservapedia is (not even mentionning creationwiki). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.168.240 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Intro
The introduction still says that Conservapedia has no reuse policy, even though it is covered in the copyright policy. I would fix it myself except for my COI. Also the source for the copyright policy attributes it solely to Andy even though i wrote the framework. G e  o. Talk to me 05:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh too late. This article is now an example of the biased nature of Wikipedia. "While Conservapedia rightly states it is the greatest encyclopedia since sliced bread, Wikipedia dares criticize our reuse policy." 151.198.44.119 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessing Conservapedia
I think there are enough comments on (a) Conservapedia articles that are amusing for one reason or another, and (b) Stories of becoming editors and having run-ins with those who can be seen as running the show. We can also accept that most Wikis are organic constructs, developing/adapting over time (in response to events, perceptions of them and interactions between them etc), and all will have problems, errors, vandalism and minimalist articles. They also need Unique Selling Points in order to persist.

Conservapedia does have a USP: to present information about the world, taking the stance of a particular variety of American Conservatism, and to promote this viewpoint. It also has a set of operational rules, including the desire to be different from Wikipedia in important respects.

To what extent does it live up to its claims - does it present and/or promote its variety of Conservatism; and does it live up to its rules?

From my observation "a significant proportion" of entries do not have references - far larger than for Wikipedia. Likewise "a significant proportion" of entries have non-trivial errors, which are not corrected (as with the Milton Keynes article mentioned above) - ditto.

Any other comments in this manner - and to what extent will the discussion about Conservapedia contribute to Wikipedia?

Jackiespeel 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the Milton Keynes article at Conservapedia is 100% spoof - see also my note, above 81.129.15.45 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain how [] is "more relevant" than some of the articles complained about by Conservapedia's organisers on Wikipedia - and any comments on the comments made about Wikipedia's use of photographs at []? Jackiespeel 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the protected articles (because we know they're not the work of vandals) - their problems with bias are an order of magnitude greater than the might-be-bias-if-you-squint-a-bit complaints they have at. They're complaining that the Wiki article on Palestinians has a picture of smiling children on it, and can't see that this might have one or two problems? Kisch 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessments are POV, as Wikipedia editors we should not assess and only reflect. παράδοξος 04:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah assessments are for Conservapedia.151.198.44.119 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Examples of bias include - Knights of Malta at [], and the somewhat circumscribed British Commonwealth at []. Jackiespeel 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Featured article on the Hindenburg. I'm not sure what point they are making. Should we have sold Helium to Nazi Germany? Are zeppelins really a viable alternative to airplanes? They seem to say yes on both accounts.151.198.44.119 04:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

for promoting the notion that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts."
Regardless of whether or not Conservapedia has been accused of this, it is ridiculous to claim that it is true. --CPATS1 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you meant that "the notion is not true"; it doesn't matter, they've stated that, and the article says "the notion", which is sort of a catch-all caveat. If you meant "Conservapedia doesn't promote this"; well, yes, they do, Mr. Schlafly has stated it several times. --Hojimachongtalk 03:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I never saw him say that, where did he say it? --CPATS1 11:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

there are at least three sides to every story: their side, my side, and the truth.παράδοξος 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * and the side we #both# agree we don't support. Jackiespeel 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article states that it is a criticism that has been leveled against CP, then sources a critic that makes that criticism. The statement then that the site has been criticized for that reason is verified by a reference. Verifiability is one of the major pillars of WP, so there is really not much to debate on this point. Tmtoulouse 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

English was made in America!!?!
I love this, conservopedia says that Wiki uses English spellings, but, WAIT.STOP.DONT SAY...English is a language that came from ENGLAND, you know, that small island. Funny that. American's have their own small ways of spelling things differently, you use z's and instead of s's in some words for example, colour has no u, they are small things, its how it is. That doesn't bother me, what really annoys me however, is that they claim that a reason NOT to use wiki is that we allow the use of English spellings, well I am f'ing sorry if we use spellings of how the English use words, and England is where the f'ing language came from. Sorry, but does this strike just me, as a little DUMB!Kicken18 10:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for your opinion on the subject. Thank you. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 12:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, they removed the american spelling rule from their conservapedia commandments.--CPATS1 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And its okay to reflect that in the article, but don't purge mention of the fact that it was policy. Tmtoulouse 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Backing off the stance on British english=anti-american
I am not disputing that the policy changed, rather I am disputing the implication that they no longer believe that British Spelling is anti-american. We have plenty of secondary sources with the site founder making that claim. Do you have any sources where he retracts that claim? So far you have only provided sources that the policy changed. Tmtoulouse 16:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The ref I was the diff of the british spelling issue being removed from the examples of bias in wikipedia page, not the conservapedia commandment page. the point being that it is no longer claimed as bias. --CPATS1 02:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is no longer against policy to user british spellings is self-evident from the source so it can be a primary source. But to make the claim that CP no longer thinks its an anti-american bias would need a secondary source, as what your proposing is synthesis and extension from a primary source, or in other words original research. Tmtoulouse 03:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To say that Conservapedia no longer claims that wikipedia's use of british spellings is anti american is backed up by the ref, I don't see what the issue is. --CPATS1 03:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The primary issue is that it is a primary source, you can not use a primary source at wikipedia to make a claim other than something that is objective material fact from looking at the page. There can be no need to synthesize, extend or add on to the source to make your point. The material was removed, thats all you can say. You can not say that they no longer think that it is anti-american. You need a secondary source to say that. Thats the problem. Tmtoulouse 03:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So would it be fine if i say, that they no longer claim that wikipedia's allowing of british spellings is anti american bias? --CPATS1 03:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The following are claims that you can make, "the policy has been changed to allow british spellings" and "they no longer list british spellings as a liberal bias on wikipedia." Anything beyond those two claims falls into WP:OR (which would be good to read and understand). You can also find other sources that meet WP:ATT if you want to say more (another good page to read, you aren't in Kansas anymore and policy means something here!). Tmtoulouse 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Copying from wikipedia
Once can use a primary source to say that CP does not allow coping from WP because it says it right out in plain sight. But a link to the wikipedia page on copying does not mention CP, it requires synthesizing two primary sources and is WP:OR. Tmtoulouse 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The original sentence is clearly criticising CP for banning WP content. It implies CP could copy if it wanted to, but chose not to. We know that is not true. That Wikipedia only allows copying by GFDL sites is also out in plain sight. There is a notice on every Wikipedia page. I would also note that there is only one secondary source mentioned in the entire section on licensing -- all the rest is argument constructed by piecing together primary sources. Indeed, much of this article is constructed by juxtaposing primary source material to paint a negative picture of Conservapedia. NPOV requires balance. If a primary source is OK to insert criticism, it should be ok to provide that balance.--agr 15:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Issue with other parts of the article should be taken up in separate headings I would think. The license section uses primary sources only to directly quote what those sources say. That seems a legitimate use of primary sources. You want to say that WP would not allow copying to CP, to do that with out a secondary source requires synthesis of two primary sources, which can not be done per WP:OR. Its not laid out a as criticism either, its a mere statement of fact. CP does not let people copy from WP. Why do you think this is a criticism? Tmtoulouse 16:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This entire article reads as Wikipedia's "answer" to Conservapedia. Several secondary sources have noted that. There is almost no content that provides any balance. At the end of a long string of criticism generally saying CP is narrowminded, a sentence that says they ban WP content is likely to be read as one more example of that narrowmindedness. I think you are right that my original sentence draws a conclusion from the two sources that could be consdered OR. I have reworded it to simply state the plain fact that WP requires GFDL for copying.--agr 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the current wording. So this issue is settled on my end. Thanks. Tmtoulouse 18:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. Sorry about the earlier bolding of my response. It was just a typo (instead of :) that I thought I had fixed, but it wasn't saved.--agr 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia and the International Astronomical Union
Now this respected organisation is presented as anti-American (I presume they are referring to the above - the term International Astronomers Union is used). See []

What is the type of logical fallacy of [] - a statement that a significant proportion of scientists believe in god (but - which particular relgious belief) linked with creation science? Jackiespeel 17:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment on Pluto (since removed) was to the effect that the demotion was confusing to the American public, and the IAU was somehow anti-American. Jackiespeel 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

At the moment Conservapedia is going through a massive cleansing operation. Almost all contributors not supporting a Youn Earth Creation stance are being eliminated.75.110.28.205 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no cabal Tmtoulouse 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no non-YEC purge and you know that. StaticElectric 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AS on the Future of Wikipedia
His prediction can be found here

And any comments on the Playboy reference at here

My survey of 20 articles not being talk pages/essays/lists (which form the criteria: 4 stubs (not so named), 6 articles with references of some sort, 1 falling into both (ie 9 articles) - the rest longer and unsourced. There is regular

Wikipedia - 4 stubs, one being unsourced, 5 others without sources/ external links.

Jackiespeel 17:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is there a liberal wiki similar to this? it should be referenced for balance. I have serious doubts that it is appropriate for wikipedia to give a platform to this source highly controversial, opinion based viewpoints and wonder whether this topic can even be presented in NPOV balance, facts only. wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think "all the major issues" with Conservapedia have been defined - and as I have said above, it is interesting to compare and contrast, Wikipedia and Conservapedia - and a variety of other Wikis for that matter.

Probably, rather than intermittently highlighting articles we-on-Wikipedia find bizarre, biased or amusing etc, the discussion should be tranferred to the talk page on the List of Wikis - or a list of comments attached to the various entries: unless someone cares to write something for Wikinfo. Otherwise we can be seen as just encouraging them Jackiespeel 13:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a liberal wiki but it doesn't seem very active. Then there is new new-found rational wiki - more-or-less created to be an antidote to CP.--British cons 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought wikipedia was the antidote to CP? I did some minor formatting changes to the above comments for readability - long urls can mess up the formatting of the page, feel free to change back if preferred.  WLU 00:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging Andrew Schlafly here
There is currently an AFD for Schlafly's article, and some of the votes want to see the material merged here. How do the editors of this article feel about that? Do you think we could support an "about the founder" section? Tmtoulouse 16:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)