Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

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)

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)

One could go through a point by point argument against the list: but to take several examples:

Again, clicking on the random page "several times" led to a minor-inapproriate header (with a comment that it was a protected delete)

Point 24 - complaining about articles with zero educational value - does Wikipedia claim to be an educational resource - and surely one function of Wikipedia is to fill minor gaps.

Point 28 - absence of article on elementary proof: quite a few large projects omit "basic definitions" until someone points them out.

As for bias - see their article on gun control at [[1]]. The Huns were "very barbaric, and frequently unkind to Christians."

Any coments "Reason in Conservapedia" at [[2]] as defining what might be wrong with Conservapedia?

Jackiespeel 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia editors SHOULD NOT RESPOND to this despicable claim unless Wikipedia Legal Guidance is provided, in my humble opinion. παράδοξος 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested FULL PROTECTION of the article until the matter is resolved by the appropriate Wikipedia Legal or Adminstrative guidance. i don't even know if the claim is true, and i need to verify. this action by this editor is preemptive. παράδοξος 03:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

(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)

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)

It states "anti-American and anti-God (in reverse order)."

The more one looks at the project, the more unpleasant it seems.

Even the logic behind the statistics it quotes is falacious - not all Wikipedians are Americans, so no direct comparison can be mace between political viepoints - and "indifferent to American beliefs" does not mean anti-American. Jackiespeel 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

There is also the "how many clicks on the random article button before you come across an article that comes under the not suitable for minors/public library terminal" game. Given that they ask for sources, there are remarkably few of them. See also [[3]]. Jackiespeel 21:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Talk section of Conservapedia's article on National Cancer Institute on Abortion I pointed out that according to their own data, cancer risk is least if abortion is no later than the first trimester, which means that the right-to-lifers, by attempting to delay abortions, are increasing women's risk of breast cancer. At first my note was there; then they just blocked the Talk section. So much for intellectual honesty.Alloco1 21:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, they just unblocked. Maybe they decided a little honesty is better than right-wing dishonesty.Alloco1 21:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The {{off topic warning}} at the top of this page notes that off-topic chatter can be removed. Usually Wikipedia is lenient on this, however a large part of this talk page seems taken up with commenting on Conservapedia itself, rather than commenting on ways to improve the article here. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to be more aggressive in removing off-topic chatter from this talk page? --Interiot 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I removed a section called "Cant create account"(sic) earlier today, and there is plenty more that could go. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 21:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just archive it? Tmtoulouse 22:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

yes - let's archive anything not current within a couple of days. --Fredrick day 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How about removing any off topic chatter "rapidly" to its own, marked as such, archive? Rather than wholesale deletion, out of respect for the authors. But I agree strongly and onehundredpercently it should not be in the way of trying to follow discussion about this article. I'd really like to "discuss this article", but the talk page became overly cumbersome very rapidly. Huw Powell 00:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i am in the process of reworking all archived comments, in order to make them readily accessible. each general topic will have its own subpage. once i finish it, i'll post for your review -- see the infoboxes on this articles talk subpage. παράδοξος 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

anyone know where i can get the template for the Infobox at the bottom of this page: Userbox_Maker page? i looked in the infobox template and infobox list pages, to no avail. παράδοξος

some topics are clearly off-topic, others may at first appear off-topic, but are meaningful contributions to the article. the threshold for off-topic should be high and we should be tolerant, cautious, and thoughtful when deleting purported off-topic comments. παράδοξος 01:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

discussion about Conservapedia content serves a very useful purpose, airing potentially encylopedic content that may be incorporated into this article. an editor observes content on Conservapedia, and they post it here. we review and evaluate the editors posting. if deemed noteworthy, we incorporate the idea derived from the post into the article. just because one editor considers a comment to be off-topic, does not mean there is unanimous consensus. this article was nominated as a good article, it is not perfect, but the article has encyclopedic value. so, I STRONGLY DISAGREE with arbitrarily removing perceived off-topic comments -- the threshold for removing must be high for this controversial article. παράδοξος 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason I see to remove comments from a talk page is if the comments are total nonsense. (I'm sure there's a policy page about this somewhere.) —Ben FrantzDale 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That is the proper approach to take generally, when large throngs of people aren't misusing the talk page, since the line is pretty blurry. But the talk page seems to be very frequently misused, people are posting pure opinion that has no chance of being reliably sourced and thus won't ever be helpful to the article. I've spent some amount of time on Conservapedia, I could frequently respond with my own opinions of the place, but that's not what this talk page is for. Pure opinion should be speedy-archived, and if people wish to refactor their comment into something that has the slightest chance of being properly sourced, then it can be unarchived. --Interiot 05:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be much of a problem but remember BLP. If any of that off topic chatter evolves into attacks or unsourced opinions and claims of the conservapedia creators & editors, it should be removed with vengence regardless of what is agreed here about general off topic chatter Nil Einne 18:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, what's the use of an offtopic removal thread without an offtopic comment? I'll do the duty. Conservapedia appears to have offtopic problems of it's own [4]. Also, I can't believe Andrew C. Oliver bet me to the 'pretend to be a good little conservative' plan... Nil Einne 19:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I get what you're saying, Mr. Pi (paradaxos?). A comment like "I can't log on to CP" may in and of itself seem like nothing to do with the article, but could possible lead to sourced information about when and how CP allows new registrations (I think they open things up for a little time, then try to sort through the vandals that get in - but I only "know" that from reading discussion and user pages). Or someone could source and write about the publicity in late February that led to the mocking bloggers, a mass wave of vandalism, and overloading their servers. At first, the comment might only be about the "subject" itself (CP), but it might evolve into good article information. By the way, I know I should find or start a different thread for this, but it seems odd to me that there are two subheadings that are the only ones in their main heading. Structurally it irks the copyeditor in me ;) Huw Powell 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

they switch it off over night. --Fredrick day 10:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would not call him a hypocrit unless I had a valid reason. What was meant by Shlafly being hypocritical, was the fact that he argued that wikipedia is biased as it is anti american and anti christian. Conservapedia is the same, only it is pro american and christian, making it itself biased, thus he is a hypocrit. I have no problem with people disagreeing with wikipedia, it's just the fact that Shlafly creates the conservapedia with the same issues he saw in wikipedia and still openly discredits wikipedia because of these apparrent he sees in it. Agonsw

I'd say he's being rather hypocritical. He said, with his bare face hanging out, "Conservapedia doesn't censor", which will bring a dispirited laugh to anyone who's tried editing there who holds views politically 'left' of Spiro Agnew. Gulik

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)

He seems worthy of a biograpghical page or at least a sub heading on the Conservapedia page. Agonsw 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

1. It is impossible to EVER edit anonymously... even your own IP talk page, which it asks you to edit. [5]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Apologies for misspelling: It's Andrew Schlafly, I left out the first "l". Huw Powell 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like original research to me. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

While altering that, we should add that conservapedia has a secret panel of homeschooled children who are the ultimate authority on what is suitable for inclusion in an article. --Fredrick day 16:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like Wikipedia, really! Carfiend 00:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

em.. that's not me trying to be funny - check out panel, they recently ruled on what the TOE article should look like. --Fredrick day 07:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to see it included, so don't get me wrong, but how does it not violate WP:OR and what WP:ATT can we source for it? Tmtoulouse 04:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have the same concerns. There's no way that what we have now are reliable sources. JoshuaZ 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there at least his "self-outing" on his blog, and discussion about him on CP? I realize those aren't exactly the New York Times, but if we aren't allowed to quote from CP itself, and have to stick with "strong" sources, this article will fall apart. For instance, the CP commandments may have been printed elsewhere by now, but they have changed twice (at least). The only way to keep them up is to continually quote (and requote) CP itself. So as long as a solid history of the "Richard incident" exists on CP, that should be a legitimate source. However, the nature of CP is not the same as WP - they do seem to happily completely erase things they aren't happy with, so the "Richard" story may vanish into thin air. Did any 3rd parties (ie, not "richard", and not CP) pick up on it and report on it? Huw Powell 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We can use a primary source for certain things, and I think the conservapedia commandments is an appropriate use of the primary source (see WP:ATT under primary source). However, the richard incident involves summarizing and synthesis from multiple primary sources with at least his blog not meeting WP:ATT. If there are no other sources, which I am almost certain there are not, then it needs to go. Tmtoulouse 20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think in this case the appropriate thing to do is err on the side of caution. I am going to be bold and remove the section, if those who want it in can come her and provide secondary sources we will but it back in. Tmtoulouse 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text from the article so people can work with it and try and source it reliably:

In late March of 2007, one of Conservapedia's sysops revealed himself to be a parody, a fake persona created by "soon-to-be-former-Republican" Andrew C. Oliver.^[1] Oliver created the editor "Richard" (after former US president Richard Nixon) and wrote an article praising Warren Harding as "one of our greatest presidents" (whereas in his regular persona, Oliver called Harding "at best corrupt and at least woefully incompetent"). This article was praised by site founder Andrew Schlafly, and "Richard" was promoted to the status of sysop. Continuing to push the parody, "Richard" wrote an article lauding Jesse Helms, frequently praised former senator Joseph McCarthy, and finally set up a list of suspected liberal Conservapedia editors in homage to McCarthy's own Communist-sympathizer lists. The administration only realized "Richard" was a parody after an online confession,^[1] following which he was de-sysoped and banned.^[2]

Tmtoulouse 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know much about wikipedia's standards. (Thus I have not made an account). But I don't see any problem with sourcing Conservapedia's logs, although the conclusions might be biased. Richard's claim that he created the Warren Harding is easily verified. It was indeed created by him, and the article contains most of his original wording. Strangely even the line "Harding's undeviating Republicanism and vibrant speaking voice, plus his willingness to let the machine bosses set policies, led him far in Ohio politics," was left unaltered. I don't know what Schafly thought of the article, but I suspect he must have liked it enough to leave it. He was indeed promoted to sysop and then later banned. I see no reason why Conservapedia's records cannot verify that. And although it was taken down, he really did have a list of suspected liberals. That I saw myself, although we would need to prove it somehow.

However, I would certainly not call a Satirist's Blog Non-point of view. For all we know, Schafly may have had his own reasons for blocking Richard, and the blog account should not be used verbatim, as it is now. 70.21.231.66 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Today Conservapedia dropped completely off Alexa, making it, in my mind, a candidate for AfD again. --Ruby 05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the fact that it has numerous reliable sources that thoroughly cover it [6] [7] [8] [9] mean that an AfD is fairly unlikely to result in deletion. --Interiot 07:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think the Conservapedia talk page [[10]] 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)

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)

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)

We now have a reliable source about that matter if someone wants to put it in. See [11]. JoshuaZ 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you really want, but isn't newsmax a little borderline? Andjam 23:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Standard Conservapedia policy currently seems to be for their 'sysops' to write their own articles (especially in such vital areas as religion, creationism and evolution) and then lock them so that nobody else can correct their often uninformed and ignorant views, let alone replace them with others. Non-fundamentalists who contribute 'heretical' articles are liable to find them first re-titled (e.g. from 'Bible contradictions' to 'Alleged Bible contradictions'), then re-directed (in this case to 'Is the Bible inerrant?') and finally downgraded to a 'project' instead of an article (as, likewise, in this case). I say 'finally', but I imagine it's only a matter of time before such articles are deleted entirely. Editors are therefore recommended to save any efforts they may care to make to their own archives for possible future reposting, possibly under a different name!

In addition, I have recently been arbitrarily blocked (permanently, I imagine, but they haven't had the decency to tell me - sysops can block anybody at the drop of a hat) for (a) 'insults' (highlighting what they are up to), (b) 'disruption' (reminding them of what the Bible actually says) and (c) 'insulting Jesus' (explaining that 'Christ' is a title, not a name). A friend of mine has similarly been blocked - in his case for correcting their Greek and thus revealing the inherent dodginess of their claimed sources.

So... contribute to it at your peril! --PL 09:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well as the above says, this isn't the place to discuss problems you encounter with conservapedia or the arbitary way they may block people. If you can find something resembling a reliable source which discusses these issues, then we could discuss whether to include these criticisms of the article however Nil Einne 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Trouble is, that would mean persuading 'some reliable source' to discuss the issues, when I know perfectly well what they are, having experienced them myself! But then direct witnesses don't count as 'reliable sources' around here - which is odd, when you think about it. So it's a sort of Catch-22... --PL 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem in general with this article. The subject is notable due to a flurry of media notice, but is unlikely (IMO) to generate much more reporting, leaving us with a rather dated set of sources, none of which are very in-depth. Meanwhile, of course as a wiki, CP keeps changing. Unless the changes are "reported" on, we can't really write about them here, since that would be OR. For instance, the commandments changed twice so far (article keeps abreast, does not note changes, that's OR). Also, three links have been added to the bottom of the page, I quote (I fixed the links so they will work from here, and reduceed the heading markup to bold for simplicity):

The Following Links Also Govern This Site

• Conservapedia Guidelines
• Conservapedia:Copyright
• Conservapedia:Administrators

The Admin file is quite interesting, it includes this: "Sysops 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." (italics in original).

There is also a secret commandment - "do not embarrass Andy" that turns up all over the place. The trouble is we can't document any of this unless someone else reports on it. And sorry if all that sounded like negative stuff about CP, we likewise can't write about improvements to the site unless someone reports on it. making work on this article an interesting challenge. Huw Powell 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly the same as with their locked articles. Not only are they not subject to what they call 'bad edits', but they can't receive 'good' ones either!

Re reporting what is going on, how about including facts from first-hand reports such as the above, with the relevant claims directly referenced to Conservapedia? Would that be factual and reliable enough? After all, I'm not contributing to the article, so whoever is could reference my report. Or could they? ;) --PL 15:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

It's on the NS website. mattbuck 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10