Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 3

message: Conservapedia is just that, conservative. Remember NPOV. Wikipedia is a different animal. Think of Wikipedia as the NPOV perspective -- you'll have no troubles. 
Paradoxos 06:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want Conservapedia to do well.  I want, very badly, for there to be a functioning viable active Conservapedia to which Wikipedia can be compared.  And then we'll see what makes for a better encyclopedia... one which stifles content, debate, facts and opinions which oppose an ideology, or one which welcomes the debate.  Mykll42 07:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Drove up a newcomer in a covered wagon: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.' And the dusty gray stranger had just about blended into the dusty gray cottonwoods in a clump on the horizon when another newcomer drove up: 'What kind of folks live around here?' 'Well, stranger, what kind of folks was there in the country you come from?' 'Well, they was mostly a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot of people.' 'Well, I guess, stranger, that's about the kind of folks you'll find around here.'"
Of course, it doesn't help that there's a fairly constant pressure of what might be called "parody vandalism," people who think Conservapedia is funny and insert over-the-top material mocking Fundys. (There's also been a certain amount of... I'd call it subtle vandalism, except "subtle" does it too much justice... freshly created articles about Bach that start by giving accurate dates and ease into saying that he composed the Diabelli Variations, and that the title of his anthology, "Bach's Great Organ Works," was suggested by Anna Magdalena after the birth of his umpteenth child...)
I'm guessing that there are probably people who see Wikipedia as a factual encyclopedia that gives too much space and credence to... um... a mainstream or liberal world-view, and only grudgingly and poorly to the... um... Schlafly world-view. And that they would like to have an encyclopedia that is, broadly, as reliable as Wikipedia, but remoulded to their heart's desire, in which uncontroversial facts would be dealt with as well as Wikipedia, but topics like evolution would have a different balance and emphasis from Wikipedia's.
I have no idea whether this is possible or how anyone would go about doing it. Conservapedia seems to think they can do this by controlling who is permitted to edit Conservapedia, but I don't think it's working. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Help me. I want to organize this page by combining similar topics and forking on new pages as necessary. Is it prudent? Can I do it? Should I do it? Any recommendation how how to proceed if I should do it? Thank you!! Paradoxos 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before merging similar topics and pages, you should reach a consensus (i.e. take a vote) among the users who visit/improve this article. Real96 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: thank you kindly! Paradoxos 01:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to review this page: WP:REFACTOR.  I think it might be a good idea to at least group similar comments. --♣Transfinite(Talk) 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I was just wondering, is Conservapedia a real thing or it just very clever satire? It's just that an awful lot of it is pretty dim and the rest is plain silly, so I was just wondering... Possecomitatus 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Playing devil's advocate by baiting without disclosure is dishonest and would be a diservice. Best I can tell, Mr. Andrew Schlafly is of the conservative philosophy and there are many people who see the world through the conservative lens. As an undergraduate, I had the pleasure of having an evolutionary biology professor who was also a Presbyterian deacon. The professor was brilliant, well versed in biology, and well versed in Christian teachings. The professor traveled to debate creationists. He invited a creationist into our evolutionary biology class. Creationists truly believe in what they say, even though it contradicts others observations. Paradoxos 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking as a committed Christian believer, I am frankly quite embarrassed by conservapedia. (I learnt about it today from an interview with Jimmy Wales in Time magazine.) It's a sad day when Christians think that the only legitimate "truth" is truth that is censored through an ultra-fundamentalist filter. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians (outside America, that is) aren't creationists or fundamentalists. The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury have spoken against creationism, and they are the leaders of 2 of the world's biggest churches. Hooray for Wikipedia and NPOV! Tonicthebrown 05:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Conservapedia needs time to become a good source. In time it will be a viable and useful tool. But without more editors, I don't know how long that will take. They need to start accepting new accounts. Jtpaladin 15:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt it will ever become a "viable and useful" tool - all of the articles are forced to conform to a creationist stance rendering most of them nonsense - coupled with numerous copyvios, the fact that admins own multiple article and refuse input from others also means that many will never improve. I suspect once people get bored of adding nonsense to it/trying to inject reality into it - it will fall to pieces. --Fredrick day 16:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a really real thing? 

message: ::Could we include the Conservapedia Commandments? http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Conservapedia_Commandments Menkatopia 19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be appropriate.Mykll42 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got too far ahead of myself an messed-up something. I'm gonna take a little break in the sandbox. Sorry for the inconvenince. Please don't block me for "infinity" Menkatopia 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Is it worth mentioning that there are various liberal equivalents of Conservapedia?
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harksaw (talk • contribs) 12:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless some reliable source mentions this Nil Einne 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is unnecessary. Per WP:RS, descriptive claims can be made about primary sources. Harksaw 13:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning them in conservapedia however still requires a secondary source Nil Einne 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal 'pedias 

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

message: I know the word "conservative" has been co-opted by people who share the conservapedia mentality, but must wikipedia go along with it by calling it a "conservative wiki"?  As a baby-boomer, I can remember when "conservative" didn't mean Christian fundamentalist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.158.86 (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's how they describe themselves.  According to Andrew Schlafly, "As an aside, I am curious about Murray's claim that 'one can be a conservative and still believe that the theory of evolution is correct.' Do you have some specific examples to support that claim? I have found nearly a 100% correlation between belief in evolution and opposition to classroom prayer, for example. But I'm open to any evidence you might have. Thanks." - from  Mykll42 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conservative" 

message: Currently Conservapedia is quite anti-Semitic. Their  "Judaism" article claims Jews are demonic, and descended from Satan through Eve and Cain. For a while, it instead claimed Jews believed in Jesus though not as the Messiah. Now however, it is trying a different tack. This demonstrable anti-Semitism, seemingly ripped strait out of those New Israelite websites, even more than the anti-Evolutionary arguments, shows how inaccurate and biased Conservapedia really is. Hopefully, even someone who believes in Conservapedia's Christian missions, will not buy the anti-Semitism. 
Incidentally they are not to kind to Muslims either, though they don't claim Muslims are evil incarnate. Wikipedia's article is clearly, and by far, fairer and less POV,
Can someone incorporate this in the article.—70.111.0.17 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservapedia does not have a anti-semitic bias. You are probably seeing vandalism. Geo. Talk to me 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

text: From Islam page "There is some evidence that some traditional Muslim scholars have been suppressing this information as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice, which was also a part of early Judaism." You do cite a source here, but surely such a controversial claim that would seem to slander two religions deserves elaboration, especially in light of the fact that the current religious texts don't seem to condone human sacrifice. What are these scrolls you speak of?-128.6.83.120 18:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia used to have an article Jews Did WTC, ha ha. 142.151.175.39 02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, they do have an article (Jews did wtc) which redirects to 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Hojimachongtalk 02:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Semitism

message: http://www.conservapedia.com/Andrew_Schlafly makes a pretty clear assertion that "Conservapedia developed as a result of his World History course. Andy Schlafly and several of his top students continue to lead the project, and most of his students have contributed entries to it." Recent edits tried to claim that the site was created, not by Schlafly, but by his students, which isn't really the same. We should, perhaps clarify the idea of "initiator" vs. "initial content editor." Schlafly is pretty clearly the former, where he and his students are collectively the latter. -Harmil 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that my edits to this effect have been reverted, but without any commentary, here... huh. -Harmil 21:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Schlafly and Conservapedia's origins 

message: To what extent does it display solipsism?
I have noticed an assortment of typos, and what appear to be little better than dic-defs, possibly written by "persons in the younger age groups of Teen Eagles." Jackiespeel 17:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Conservapedia

message: It is very difficult to navigate and research what everyone is saying. There are a lot of great comments on this page. This discussion page has the current and an archived. Propose to:
* combine related topics from both the current and archived page and split. comments may belong under multiple topics.
* create a table on this main page that includes links to the split topics and their summaries
* archive current contents of this page
paradoxos 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll: Split Current and Archived Discussion Pages

message: Conservapedia has changed their logo.  I will delete the logo we have up there now, but I don't trust myself to go uploading images at this point.  If someone else could do it... you know... sweet.Mykll42 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Got it uploaded and linked on the page.  I might have to check this one for hidden messages too... --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo change 

message: Conservatives are not necessarily Creationists. There are conservatives and liberals that believe evolution is a biological process. There are other conservatives and liberals that believe in evolution and also believe all living organisms were created by god, but not in the way the bible states. Conservapedia's articles reflect Creationist views by excluding evolution as a biological process and geological interpretations of the earths age as being billions of years old. Creationists do not believe in evolution, but believe god created the earth 6,000 years ago and all living were created in their present forms. Inserting Conservapedia's article content reflects Creationist views in the first paragraph is appropriate.
First paragraph might read something like this:
Conservapedia (Website launched November 2006)is a wiki free online encyclopedia project with Creationist viewpoints. Articles are self reported as pro-U.S., socially conservative and supportive of conservative Christianity.[2][3][4]
παράδοξος 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservapedia's self description as  conservative is arguably a misnomer. Conservapedia's viewpoints are not conservative, instead are Creationist and likely revisionist. Conservapedia's editorial philosophy contradicts OrthodoxWiki's Policies, slightly resembles Theopedia's Policies and most closely resembles CreationWiki's Policies. My interpretations presented here are not attributable. παράδοξος 00:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative vs Creationist

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

message: Free as in beer, certainly... but as I write this, the word "free" does not appear on the main page. It certainly does not license its work under the GFDL, Creative Commons, or other "free" licenses. Aschlafly has said that he does not object to re-use as long as the re-use does not harm Conservapedia, but has not formalized this. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The copyright policy is being worked on here. Geo. Talk to me 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Free" online encyclopedia?

message: Do we need to make it clearer in the article that Conservapedia thinks that Original research is ok and that is another difference from Wikipedia? --Fredrick day 07:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservapedia explicitly articulated original research is ok as article content? to me, it looks like Conservapedia has introduced personal interpretations in articles' content, but i have not personally seen it explicitly stated on the website. if you find it, then its worthy of being succinctly addressed in the intro and developed further in the body! παράδοξος 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can say that.  Their rule 6 is:  "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages."  However this rule is ignored on the majority of their pages.--Laukiz (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. and then you can find the site owner saying on the talkpage of that page Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world. --Fredrick day 21:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just saw that and was coming back to place the url (http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia). παράδοξος 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just noticed that myself, and was coming back to mention it. Would seem to be a contradiction wouldn't it?--Laukiz (talk) 10:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I like the very factual nature on the article on Infidels ... maybe it could be used somehow ? B00red
:Are you kidding? Migdejong 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: been a card carrying Internet Infidel aka freethinker since '97. παράδοξος 21:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have many amongst us.  For an organization that despises all that wikipedia stands for, they have an unhealthy obsession with us.  To be fair, I have an unhealthy obession with them.  Mykll42 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infidels 

message: I see they have a new conflict resolution group at: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Panel
It is described below:
''
The Conservapedia Panel is Conservapedia's conflict resolution group. It is designed to resolve major conflicts that come up on the site. We do not censor in any way.
Who is it?
The members of this group are made up of college bound students from the original 58 homeschooled students that started this site. The members remain Anonymous. --Laukiz (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the introduction where the home schoolers are initially mentioned I'd say. If it's not too much like original research. But presumably we can quote them as a reference to themselves?  Or is it not a reliable reference? :-)--Laukiz (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict Resolution Group. 

message: They won't let an IP edit a page at all... all anonymous IPs are block. Yet they told me to talk for my IP... and 
Also... accounts cannot be created during UnAmerican hours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electricbassguy (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the anonymity of the panel, we actually only have one source that such a panel exists.  I don't think we can say the panel exists as independent confirmation is impossible. Mykll42 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: These people are paranoid and don't understand Wiki fucntions

message: Check out the current frontpage - Think our schools are doing a good job today? Read this racist contribution to Conservapedia from an internet address at Brown University, an elite, liberal college. --Fredrick day 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lewis and Clark Article παράδοξος 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw that, and had to take an "Oh, wow." moment, and pick my jaw up off the floor.  I wonder if they realize they gave the troll exactly what he wanted.  Back on the subject, it could be worked into a section on Conservapedia's reaction to vandalism, along with "We will send you to Federal Prison for vandalizing our wiki." --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to make a note of the liberal watchlist as well.  http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List
It's moderated by a SYSOP who claims that he's a follower of McCarthy (sriously)--Laukiz (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the presence of no less than four other sysops on that list. Tsumetai 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really.  Hadn't noticed that.  What I do note are some of the most effective contributors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laukiz (talk • contribs) 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Amazing Mr Christopher 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turns out that the liberal list was the work of a parodist. Tsumetai 13:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and shame policy 

message: If this site were truly NPOV, sites like Conservapedia wouldn't exist. But as long as you all <negative comment redacted> post whatever tripe they wish, Wikipedia will remain completely, 100% useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.145.177.110 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 27 March 2007  (UTC)
: Attribute, please. --Iamunknown 19:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic, the existence of a flat earth wiki-based encyclopedia (for example) would also demonstrate that Wikipedia is not neutral. —Ben FrantzDale 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And Wiki Maintains there is no bias here

message: I've had a look at Conservapedia, and as near as I can tell, almost every article is a stub.  There are few attributions, and even the few articles of any length are clearly not encyclopedic (eg/ the entry on "punk" is a long article about "christian punk" with no mention of anything else).  The Wikipedia entry about Anarchopedia was deleted and salted to keep it from ever being recreated.  A cynical man might wonder why Anarchopedia was banished for being "unencyclopedic" while Conservapedia gets a nice long article here and conclude that it might have something to do with the political leanings of King Jimmy and his court nobles. SmashTheState 20:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the "quality" or length of conservapedia articles is not what makes it noteworthy.  Who founded it, what their ambition is and how they are going about it is what drew national media attention.  Well and some of the kookier articles I suppose (the picture of jesus holding a dinosaur was pretty amusing).  I'll agree that there is nothing encyclopedic at Conservapedia but that is not their goal.  Think of it as organized christian propaganda. Mr Christopher 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: this article is coming along nicely, despite diametrically opposing ideologies. the article is far from finished, but significant progress is being made. when i first started editing this article, my first real editing project on Wikipedia, there were a lot of obvious anti-Conservapedia POVs on the article. as an article contributor, i see my contribution as teaching Wikipedia users about Conservapedia -- it does not matter whether I feel Conservapedia content is Right or Wrong. i would disservice Wikipedia users if i edited Wikipedia's content in a biased way, advocating a viewpoint is better or worse, right or wrong  --  i present arguments and let users make decisions.
:παράδοξος 23:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article coming along

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

message: I've completed another round of my Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia survey, which I do periodically. The goal of this survey is to compare the relative quality of the two sites in terms of the degree to which their content can be verified. I try to use only objective metrics (are external links provided? are individual statements sourced? are all sections cited? etc.) Interestingly, Wikipedia not only comes out ahead again (as expected from a more mature project), but Conservapedia's overall quality does not appear to be increasing. This could be because articles are being added at a rate that exceeds quality control efforts, or it could be that there is some bias (in the non-pejorative sense) away from these standards. I take no particular stand on the matter, I'm just the guy who presses "random article" and takes notes  -Harmil 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that, typically, other wikis don't set out to create an encyclopedia that solves the problems of Wikipedia. It's on that basis that I think any comparison (especially one carried out over time, in order to watch the improvement or lack thereof) is reasonable. -Harmil 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia vs. Conservapedia survey update 

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

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

message: There is something definitely "strange" about Conservapedia. It was set up with a particular target market and framework, and a proportion of the articles appear to have been written by the young persons it is intended for (and probably serves as useful a learning exercise as all such projects). Several of the faults and problems assigned to Conservapedia can be ascribed to its newness, and exploring what are the most appropriate forms of presentation (and some would occur in #any# collaborative project).
I think most people would accept "Please use US spelling and BC/AD" as working conventions - whatever their local use - but why create such a fuss about spelling on Wikipedia? Given the multilingual/multi-English-variant nature of Wikipedia users different spellings are going to occur. Claiming that using Habsburg rather than Hapsburg (to take an example) is evidence of an anti-evidence bias is stretching the definition. (The statistical logic about Wikipedia being 6x more liberal than America as a whole is incorrect - given the world-wide English using community who contribute to or use Wikipedia.)
However - there are certain aspects of Conservapedia which do not make sense. There are somewhat bizarre levels of apparent vandalism and attempts at humour (see the example I mention above). There is no control on the "random page" facility - which leads to the regular calling up of articles (mostly with a comment to the effect that the text has been blanked) inappropriate to the target market. One would expect articles to be presented from the given religious/cultural etc viewpoint (as they would be for other specialist wikis) - but some entries on Conservapedia are political or even extremist - to an extent that I can see some  public libraries start blocking access to Conservapedia it (as they do Uncyclopedia). 
(NB - can Archive page 2 be created.)
Jackiespeel 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed this, too. In the class I teach I use Conservapedia as a tool to show how propaganda works. It is stunningly overt in its faithfulness to the ideals of Schlafly. However, I don't think it is dangerous--yet. My very personal opinion is that CP will reach a critical mass at which point it will collapse into <gasp> facts, but that may be a ways off. The problem is, even Ed Poor can't ban people fast enough all the time to stop people from getting in. As I've watched this site, so many users are banned every day it is hard to imagine the site being useful for anything. This could be a very long tangent so I'll stop there, but as a social experiment, it is quite interesting. Menkatopia 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a request to be unbanned? Refresh my memory, on what grounds was your account blocked? --Uncle Ed 22:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  you must be confused - this is wikipedia, we do wikipedia business here - Conservapedia business is done over at Conservapedia. Do NOT conduct Conservapedia admin business here. --Fredrick day 22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I joined Conservapedia about 3 weeks ago and was "unanimously elected" sysop after 6 days there. Other Wikipedians I've seen helping the project include dpbsmith and interiot. 
The project's policies are evolving but are not hostile to liberal content - merely to the expression of liberal canards as fact. With the exception of four dozen protected pages, all articles are open to editing by non-sysops.
Compared to Wikipedia, the project is especially sympathetic to the religious side of the creation-evolution debate. However, saboteurs have entered parody content - apparently with generating 'evidence' of how 'silly' the site is. It's difficult to detect these without becoming "McCarthyist". I suspected "Richard" from the start, but I'm a rather tolerant and easygoing fellow and therefore did not voice my suspicions. 
After becoming a sysop, I clamped down hard on incivility - a perennial problem in any on-line project. About half of those I've warned and/or temp-blocked left or got banned. The rest seemed to have decided to buckle down and produce some serious work. It's the same as Wikipedia: if you tolerate nonsense, you get nonsense. 
A major difference with Wikipedia not brought out in the present article is Conservapedia's editorial insistence on getting facts right. There is no NPOV at Conservapedia, so an effort to get at the truth is appreciated. (Like Wikipedia, when the truth is not known - at least not agreed upon by contributing editors - both sides of the story are given.) Unlike Wikipedia, when a POV opposite to the dominant viewpoint is presented, it is permitted to remain in the article - if properly labeled. The classic formula X said Y about Z, which I labored hard to establish here, is (becoming) the norm there. 
Less than 48 articles are currently protected. The 'flagship' article Theory of evolution is anti-Materialistic; it would would not be permitted at Wikipedia. It highly favors Creationism. Several contributors have been clamoring for this article's unprotection, but as they have no organized plan and have not submitted useful content nearly all their work has been reverted. They almost seem to court this treatment with an unrelenting stream of rude comments. 
I seem to be an exception to this 'revert-on-sight' rule, and many of my additions have passed muster. <grin> No, I do not pander, I simply write neutrally. I guess my 5 years at Wikipedia, learning how to work collaboratively to craft a sort of 'consensus' on an article, are paying off. I am, of course, the original author of Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy.
Conservapedia is not the enemy, even though A. Schlafly has fired a few shots across Wikipedia's bow (so to speak). It's a haven for the rejected ideas which NPOV (as interpreted and applied here) chosen to censor. --Uncle Ed 22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  shouldn't this be on your userpage? what's it got to do with improving an article? --Fredrick day 22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a controversial issue and i see importance of what Uncle Ed is trying to say, though i respectfully disagree with Uncle Ed's assessments of Conservapedia and Wikipedia, facts and truths. Uncle Ed confuses truth with fact. Conservapedia renders "truth", and Wikipedia renders facts. παράδοξος 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is a controversial issue, which is why the talk page should be used for discussion about improving the article only, and not for personal opinions about Conservapedia. - Nunh-huh 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As a fellow liberal sysop at CP, I can vouch for the validity of Uncle Ed's comments, and appreciate the insightfulness of παράδοξος. --Hojimachongtalk 20:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Wikipedian's experience

message: Huge section in today's Conservapedia: Bia of Wikipedia.  παράδοξος 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's been around since the very beginning. Its a comprehensive list of 42 ad hominem attacks! I really love how they try hard to find specific examples of bias, and it's pretty difficult. --Hojimachongtalk 20:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias of Wikipedia