Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 4

message: I see the current number 3 on "examples of bias in wikipedia" says 
"Statistics" and "Popular pages" are standard features in the wiki software used by Wikipedia and Conservapedia. But Wikipedia conceals this information from the public.[4] Why is Wikipedia hiding its data on its popular pages? Wikipedia used to be hosted by a company profiting from pornography.[5] Is Wikipedia traffic increased by its sex-related entries? Are minors, who are heavy users of Wikipedia, attracted to those entries? 
Do we need to deal with that in this article? in another article (we have a critism of wikipedia article don't we? )--Fredrick day 09:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure all their allegations of bias are fallacious. Most of the things they claimed as bias just seemed to be examples of WP:NPOV, ie they claim bias in that it's not God-biased. Which is an interesting argument to make, and not without its own merit, but such a philosophical debate is best left to another place. mattbuck 09:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the statement is despicable and liable. this is a "personal" attack against Wikipedia, and Wikipedia editors should use extreme caution responding.  the comment is highly inflammatory and potentially liable.  the comment is over the edge, and Wikipedia editors should consider approaching Wikipedia Officers on how to proceed. παράδοξος 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: (edit conflict) Paradoxos, I don't think anything needs to be done.  Conservapedia's Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article has a lot fallacious and unsourced or original research and un-noted claims. No need to be concerned over any particular one. --Iamunknown 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: gotcha! i was worried about vandals hitting this article, but vandalism is just that. thanks for taking time to respond. παράδοξος 11:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia uses sex to attract minors 

message: I think the various arguments about Conservapedia-as-a-thing are becoming circular.
There are "errors and glitches" as with any such project - shall we assume that many of them - and various of the design flaws - will be resolved given time. Many of those involved in Conservapedia appear to be newbies - we should treat them gently as requested within Wikipedia.
This talk page is here to describe Conservapedia-the-Wikipedia-article, not criticise, express disapproval of, or amusement at Conservapedia-the-entity, or express our disapproval. The various legal threats and complaints made by Conservapedia (and the matter of licencing) are probably best dealt with elsewhere. 
Let us see how Conservapedia develops rather than complaining about it, or complaining about the complaints.
Consider the positive points - it is an interesting exercise in how to run a wiki-encyclopedia on principles deliberately different to those of Wikipedia (even to using "Very Short Article" rather than "This is a stub") - and most people who have been following this discussion will now be aware of the existence of other wikis operating on a basis of a particular viewpoint or covering a particular area than they were before.
Jackiespeel 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear hear. I agree with J's comments. In fact, what I like most about that site (aside from the fact that some of my students have contests to see who can get banned the quickest) is the contrast they present to Wikipedia. I think we have a real opportunity to show how NPOV we can be (though that strikes me as a slightly tautologious). At any rate, enough blathering, it would be better to show their shortcomings and successes through the lens of what they produce and how notable they become. Wonderful fun. Menkatopia 19:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summing up to present

message: It might bear mentioning that there is currently no way to sign up for a new account on Conservapedia. There is a way to sign in, but not sign up. Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: they switch it off over night. --Fredrick day 10:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Registration_is_closed.3F "Registration is opened from about noon to 10 pm NYC time. We've been closing it before the drunks come out. Actual times can vary due depending on our webmaster's schedule. We'll probably return to round-the-clock open registration again soon.--Aschlafly 11:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)"  I believe the basic concept is to avoid being drowned in vandalism, by one, as Andy says, keeping the drunks out (what about European drunks?  Early afternoon drunks?) and two, keeping new accounts to a manageable number so sysops can track their edits and delete them quickly if they are "unfriendly" to the site. Huw Powell 19:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Signing up for

message: Just pointing out that while Andrew Schlafly is accusing wikipedia of being biased, he himself is a hypocrite, as he has stated that he has attempted to edit articles "to include pro-Christian or pro-American views", evidence of his biased views against anti or neutral American/Christian views
======Directly from article:======
In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian newspaper, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds — so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."[2] On March 7 Andrew Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that many Wikipedia articles use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly.[20] Conservapedia has asserted that, "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."[21]
Agonsw 08:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no hypocracy here. Schlafly has never claimed that bias is Wikipedia's problem, he's claimed that liberal bias is Wikipedia's problem. He's not upset because Wikipedia violates NPOV, he's upset because it does not contain his POV. You're approaching this from a Wikipedia-centric NPOV standpoint, and while I (like you, apparently) think that that's the most sane approach to creating an encyclopedia, I don't think that it's fair to call people who don't agree with that hypocritcs. -Harmil 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can Schlafly #prove# that most Wikipedia users are American and/or Christians (of whatever persuasion)? Is he referring to English language Wikipedia - or the whole? See my comments above about the use of statistics. 
Does he state what article was changed within 60 seconds? How many articles in general are so changed (excluding ones "with a tendency to be creatively edited" or where someone corrects a typo/accidental mangling)? Jackiespeel 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypocritical views of Andrew Schlafly   

message: In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian newspaper, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds — so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."[2] On March 7 Andrew Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that many Wikipedia articles use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly.[20] Conservapedia has asserted that, "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."[21]
Agonsw 08:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no hypocracy here. Schlafly has never claimed that bias is Wikipedia's problem, he's claimed that liberal bias is Wikipedia's problem. He's not upset because Wikipedia violates NPOV, he's upset because it does not contain his POV. You're approaching this from a Wikipedia-centric NPOV standpoint, and while I (like you, apparently) think that that's the most sane approach to creating an encyclopedia, I don't think that it's fair to call people who don't agree with that hypocritcs. -Harmil 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can Schlafly #prove# that most Wikipedia users are American and/or Christians (of whatever persuasion)? Is he referring to English language Wikipedia - or the whole? See my comments above about the use of statistics. 
Does he state what article was changed within 60 seconds? How many articles in general are so changed (excluding ones "with a tendency to be creatively edited" or where someone corrects a typo/accidental mangling)? Jackiespeel 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Directly from article:

message: On their list point 12 about stubs - the term "very short article" is used: and many articles are very short but have no comment on them.
Are there any comments anywhere about how various other "themed" Wikis differ from Wikipedia? Do they have lists like Conservapedia's? Jackiespeel 21:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia

message: He seems worthy of  a biograpghical page or at least a sub heading on the Conservapedia page. Agonsw 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, there should be one.  Someone just added brackets to his name to make it a link - but his "page" has been a redirect to here for a while and still is.  I am removing the brackets (link) until someone creates a page for him.  Can anyone find basic biographical info, so combined with some CP stuff, there will be content?  He has certainly been quoted about more than CP in the media (eg, abortion causing breast cancer). Huw Powell 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no Andrew Shlafly page?  

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

message: Before I move onto other matters (and using "themed Wiki" for convenience).
This is #what I observe# directly or from what others say:
Wikipedia, for several reasons, is the most prominent of a group of online encyclopedias, and is used as a benchmark/for comparison.
Certain articles (not being developing events etc) in Wikipedia and Conservapedia (and possibly elsewhere) are subject to vandalism or rearrangement. A number of articles are likely to have POV issues ("Bad King John" of England etc), whichever the wiki used.
"Themed Wikis" are likely to present articles from their preferred viewpoints (the computer orientated ones will have Bugs-as-in-computers, with a "see also" to the critters) and should be considered in terms of the "set of definitions/operating principles" adopted.
Many of the Wikis allow people to edit on IP addresses. Wikipedia blocks some IP addresses (on grounds of vandalism etc) but allows "known editors" to sign via these IPs (the blocks are, in the few cases I have checked, not in place for non-English areas of Wikipedia, or other Wikis). There appears to be no bar on who can edit most Wikis - providing the editor acts with due courtesy and adds information or asks relevant questions. Conservapedia requires people to log in, and wishes them to follow certain political/theological/cultural guidelines. Conservapedia operates on a "known and agreed editors" principle, and banishes people for idiosyncratic reasons. (As stated in my earlier posting, "please adhere by the following guidelines, including choice of spelling/date presentation" type requests are not an issue.)
Most Wikis are likely to have a number of "minimalist articles" - for reasons including "there is very little information on this topic" to "relevant page of encyclopedia/website X is very thorough - click here for link" and "we are waiting for someone with more knowledge of the subject to develop it."
Wikipedia prefers articles to be overviews or derived from information available elsewhere in a reasonably accessible form. Conservapedia makes the same claim - but many of its articles either do not provide references, or make use of a very limited range of sources. Conservapedia has a number of "study documents", a format which does not occur on Wikipedia.
Clicking repeatedly on the "Random article" in many Wikis leads to articles that are library-friendly/work-safe/suitable for minors - doing so with Conservapedia regularly does not. Given that one of Conservapedia selling points is that it is aimed at the 11-16 age group some might call this a problem. 
A number of articles on Conservapedia appear to rely on "deliberately faulty logic" or appear to be biased to those outside the intended readership group - gun control being an example. (There is a difference between "This is the viewpoint of group Z on subject y" "and this is why we oppose group W" in Z-opedia, and articles which appear to say "this is the only correct political/theological etc viewpoint on the subject.")
I think we are getting to the stage where we will have to say "this is Wikipedia's position and policies, those are Conservapedia's and we are unlikely to draw any closer in the discussion" and confine the Wikipedia article to an overview of Conservapedia and its development. A number of the "typos and inelegances" have already been corrected: "in six months time" some of the other issues raised may have been resolved. There is as much justification for making Conservapedia a single political/religious/cultural viewpoint, using a single variant of a single language as there is for Wikipedia to use the multiples - which does not make Wikipedia anti-American or anti-Christian (or pro- or anti- almost any other groups - beyond vandals and others who cause injury or damage without reason).
One last point - discussions of the proprietor of Conservapedia are more relevant on the talk page of the Wikipedia article about him than here.
Jackiespeel 21:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary part 2

message: 1. It is impossible to EVER edit anonymously... even your own IP talk page, which it asks you to edit. 
2. You can't make an account between certain hours because it wants to keep the site for Americans only, I believe.
3. The page for Republicans is a long history of their greatness, the democrats writes short snippets about the hypocrisy of their platform!
Electricbassguy 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some clarifications on policy

message: this is interesting - basically the site owner is attempting to use the breast cancer article to push the idea that abortion is a major cause of breast cancer. In his day job, he sues doctors on that basis. Can we work this into the article or do we need for a 3rd party comment on it? --Fredrick day 21:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wow, definitely difficult to incorporate with NPOV! might work if we can incorporate it as an exemplary philosophical difference why Conservapedia exists without POV. i am sure someone will pick up the story, write about it, publish it, then we can cite it independently.:D  otherwise, 3rd party comment is appropriate in my opinion. παράδοξος 23:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Aschafly certainly has "issues" with this issue, the actual article on Breast Cancer at CP is not too bad, and currently makes no mention of the "abortion/breast cancer" link.  Methinks this is all the more reason for Mr. Schafly, Esq., to have his own article.  He is certainly well reported on enough by now to have good cites in real media, and the article would be a good place to, if appropriate, include things he has written and signed on CP talk pages. Huw Powell 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freak me out, but what the comment by Paradaxos above used to say was "wow, definitely COI! might work if we can incorporate it as an exemplary philosophical difference why Conservapedia exists without NPOV."  Strange how (s)he reversed the meaning of what (s)he was saying.  I know this doesn't matter (or does it?), but it does make it hard to follow what people are saying if they edit their comments without using "strikethrough" on the old text. Huw Powell 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: i think we can work it into this article, but we should consider asking a senior Wikipedia administrator how to proceed. i like your idea, ALOT. παράδοξος 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for misspelling: It's Andrew Schlafly, I left out the first "l". Huw Powell 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems like original research to me.  --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Transfinite here.  It's original research to compare two primary sources and draw a conclusion.  i kan reed 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and well put.  Makes it easier for noobs like me to understand.  An article of this nature treads very close to the OR line, for legitimate reasons (EG, quoting the CP commandments, I don't think there is an up to date version "in print"), but still can't go over that line, and I think you described what the "other side" of that line looks like perfectly. Huw Powell 22:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible COI 

message: From the article: The policing of articles is accomplished by Andrew Schlafly himself, and 30 additional sysops. (List of Conservapedia sysops) Throughout March of 2007, this small group had numerous problems preserving the creationist viewpoint of Conservapedia, since the majority of the dedicated editors and administrators of the site disagree with their goal of censorship of non-creationist viewpoints, and edit accordingly. (See, e.g., the Theory of Evolution Talk Page, especially the "Vote" section, expressing this majority.)
This entire passage seems like original research to me.  The first cite is just a sysop count (33 as of April 11, 2007), and the second cite is "Look at the vote!".  While the vote didn't seem to have any sockpuppetry, using it to say "this small group had numerous problems preserving the creationist viewpoint of Conservapedia" runs pretty close to a "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material." --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of like Wikipedia, really! Carfiend 00:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through all the User pages with entries (because I don't have a life) and found a handful of kids who self-identified as homeschooled, they were participants early on, but none of them are active now.  CP is now a private sandbox with a bunch of sysops banning editors for petty slights, and protected articles being edited, live, by the protecting sysop. --Ruby  05:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Today Conservapedia dropped completely off Alexa, making it, in my mind, a candidate for AfD again.  --Ruby  05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, the fact that it has numerous reliable sources that thoroughly cover it     mean that an AfD is fairly unlikely to result in deletion.  --Interiot 07:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I think the Conservapedia talk page [] summarises much of the discussion on the topic (and is the "sin up" an example of a Freudian slip?). Jackiespeel 17:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as a note on this article, whenever you cite the talk page as evidence, you have to realize that it's a primary source.  For wikipedia, that means the best you can do with it and still have it be verifiable is make a statement about the literal contents of the page.  It's original research to summarize it. It's original research to compare it to something.  It's original research to even conclude that the statements made on that page are the actual opinions of those who made the statements.  i kan reed 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was noting it here as a useful link (and some of the entries do look "slightly" tongue in cheek) - which is not quite OR. I suspect none of the other wikis have caused so much discussion. Jackiespeel 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing of Conservapedia

message: We now have a reliable source about that matter if someone wants to put it in. See . JoshuaZ 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want, but isn't newsmax a little borderline? Andjam 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscenity/legal threat 

message: The New Scientist mentioned Conservapedia in their "feedback" column this week. Probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source (NS does but I don't think the feedback column would) but might be worth considering Nil Einne 14:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a link, or is it subscription only?  (If so, can you quote it here?) Huw Powell 18:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on the NS website. mattbuck 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Scientist