Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reviewing Conservatively

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Unfortunately, they fixed it That is too bad. I would have LMAO it I had see that. --Art8641 19:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo out of date again

message: Conservapedia now has a copyright policy. Geo. Talk to me 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Copyright policy 

message: The website appears to be presently unavailable - is this a temporary glitch? Jackiespeel 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had a problem accessing it today. Jrssr5 13:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Conservapedia availability

message: Has anyone else encountered difficulties in logging onto Conservapedia as a new user? Alan Liefting 22:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Difficulty in logging onto Conservapedia as a new user 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. •Jim62sch• 10:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Source

message: 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. Geo. Talk to me 05:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yeah assessments are for Conservapedia.151.198.44.119 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of bias include - Knights of Malta at [], and the somewhat circumscribed British Commonwealth at []. Jackiespeel 17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Assessing Conservapedia

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

text: and the side we #both# agree we don't support. Jackiespeel 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  for promoting the notion that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts." 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Also, they removed the american spelling rule from their conservapedia commandments.--CPATS1 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: English was made in America!!?!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Backing off the stance on British english=anti-american

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: There is no cabal Tmtoulouse 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservapedia and the [[International Astronomical Union]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: AS on the Future of Wikipedia

message: 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)
thread_title: Merging [[Andrew Schlafly]] here