Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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 →


Contents

Conservapedia's Fallacies

I personally noticed many problems with Conservapedia's page on Wikipedia's bias. For example, they adopt a "with us or against us" mentality. Wikipedia has a NPOV rule, which Conservapedia perceives as liberal, simply because it is not conservative. In addition, many of the things they accuse Wikipedia of doing (using outdated sources, etc.) they do in the same page, and various other pages. Finally, I noticed that a link for their study which supposedly proves that Wikipedia is 6 times more biased than the American public, it led to a different page on their perceived bias on Wikipedia. Sillybear25 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia is hilarious

I would like to recommend that anyone who has ever disagreed with anything ever should go read Conservapedia articles in their spare time. There are some hilarious articles. Also, it's fun to moderate bias and get accused of 'bias.' Maybe they just claim my edits are biased because i made my username 'GodlessLiberal'... omg ShiftPlusOne 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You and I disagree with Conservapedia's content/editorials. Always remember there are people who think differently than you and me. With this in mind, Wikipedia has an ultimate obligation to present the whole story, not just yours and mine. Wikipedia has two important guidelines for its editors NPOV and Attribution. When does or should an editor not address a fringe idea? I say my friend, I do not have the answer and I cannot speak for my fellow Wikipedia users and Wikipedia editors but Wikipedia has collaborative guidelines that we, collectively, can modify. paradoxos 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-American

Is the use of Commonwealth spellings really the best example of Anti-American bias that Conservapedia has? Given that anyone who's ever actually read wikipedia will know, something like 9/10 a neutral article will have US spelling which is obviously greater then proportion of American vs Commonwealth speakers (especially when the large number of non-native speakers are considered) it seems a bit of a silly example. I'm not saying we should remove it, obviously not, just wondering if this is really what they mean when they say anti-American bias. I would have thought they're more concerned about the way we don't suggest the US is the best country in the world and everyone else who doesn't agree with the US is evil (well obviously that's not how they will put it but you get the idea) Nil Einne 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That does seem to be their best example, though IMHO it's not nearly as amusing as their complaint that Wikipedia allows the use of CE/BCE (emphasis added). I don't think this is really relevant to this article though. It might in principle be relevant to the countering systemic bias project, but I think not. Elliotreed 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Your right and it also appears to be the example mostly covered in the media so there's nothing we can change there. Seems silly but if that's the best example they have and the one they tell the media, well so be it. Personally if I was them, I could come up with better examples but if that's the example they want to go by... Nil Einne 08:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
By "anti-American" they mean "anything which isn't from a patriotic conservative Christian American perspective". They object to Wikipedia content not being implicitly in favour and supportive of America, or being written from an American perspective on what they believe should be an American site. British spellings seem to be their biggest bugbear, though. You'd think they could muster some more provocative examples, but that's what they list on their page of Wikipedia biases. Kronix1986 12:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you just went and changed the article to Queen's English amuses me thusly :) mattbuck 13:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, could someone explain to this obviously naive brit, why expounding freedom of speech is seen as anti-American? I was under the impression that the founding fathers were mostly humanists who went to America to escape the religious conservatism of 15th C. Europe. After all it's us that have our Head of State as Head of the national church, and USA who have the secular constitution. Kestrus 2007 March 08, 22:58 (GMT)

It is not considered anti-American, in general, but only by the group of people who sympathize with Conservapedia. Note that these are people who think that using CE instead of AD is an example, not of neutrality, but of anti-Christian beliefs. Your point about the Founding Fathers is true and only shows just how far this brand of conservatism, which ostensibly stands for respect to the Western canon, is actually ignorant of the very history it claims to champion. Interlingua talk email 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, some of the Founding Fathers might have been atheists or humanists; certainly some (e.g., Jefferson) were Deists. Broadly, though, they were religious people who had, for the most part, been brought up in North America (as English subjects, admittedly). Proof that they must have had some sort of religion can be found in the fact that the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence talks quite happily about Nature's God, the Creator. The Pilgrim Fathers, meanwhile, were a bunch of even more religious people who were brought up in England, but fled to America after suffering religious persecution. I've not a foggiest notion to which group your question was referring. Wooster (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It is of course possible to be a humanist and religious... Kestrus 2007 March 23, 16:32 (GMT)
Humanist like Desiderius Erasmus, or like Bertrand Russell? Renaissance humanism (a scholarly movement which led to the humanities) was, of course, deeply religious—but I was assuming you were using the word "humanist" in its modern, philosophical sense. In that sense, even "religious humanists" would have to be methodologically naturalistic. Wooster (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If they were really "Conservatives", they would have conserved the Monarchy of England. ImpartialCelt 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Wikipedia has a clear policy on British vs 'merican vs whereever else's spellings. We use the flavor that is most closely related to the article in question. It's a style choice not a moral choice . . sheesh . . freedom fries indeed. Numskll 01:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely, another big influence is the origin of whoever writes the first draft for any article - as a Brit, I most naturally write "colour", "centre" etc (because to me, the American alternative spellings are spelling mistakes) - which I guess could lead to variant spellings being used in the same article, if I don't check what's used elsewhere - but if someone else later "corrects" my spelling, or homogenizes the whole article to US spelling - well, that's no big deal, is it? PaulHammond 17:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wrote several articles here using Canadian style which most often uses British spellings over American, but those were changed to American style. I didn't object to that as they were American-centred articles. But I insisted that an article on the Shaq Harbour UFO incident NOT spell "Harbour" as "Harbor." (It is located in Nova Scotia, Canada) There was a bit of a fight on that one, but since it was a place name and since the "u" is found on Google Maps, I won out. But to pretend that there is some "preferred" form of English - or that there should be - is in my view a completely untenable position. Last week, I saw on Conservapedia's home page a link to some articles about several plane crashes which occured over a lack of understanding of English, presumably underlining the need for everyone to speak it on the planet. I await breathlessly the same point being made about the use of METRIC on Conservapedia... Canada Jack 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations

The current version (as of right now) of Conservapedia's article on Iraq appears to be a direct copyright violation of the Wikipedia article on Iraq. While Wikipedia does release all content to the GFDL, the GFDL also provides that if someone does copy content, it must remain in the GFDL, which I don't think is the case with Conservapedia. Dr. Cash 00:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted that and blocked the offender for 4 months. Geo. Talk to me 01:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Conservapedia doesn't use the GFDL? Really? I wonder if Jimbo knows that? Surely he wouldn't have given this statement (cited in this article) if he did: "Free culture knows no bounds. We welcome the reuse of our work to build variants." Can someone please confirm whether Conservapedia uses the GFDL? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I tried looking for their copyright policy and learned almost nothing other than the site's a mess. I mean, the privacy policy linked at the bottom of every page is basically a red link, the FAQ is unhelpful, and their "commandments", which are their only policies as far as I can tell, do not even address copyright (I understand it's a work in progress, but these are basic issues). I see no evidence that Conservapedia releases its content under a GFDL license, nor do I suspect such a nuanced approach to copyright to be found upon further review of the site. I'm going to message Jimbo and see if he wants to stick by that quote. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
See here (full discussion). I added some info on this, but it got reverted as OR.[1] I'm going to work it back in, because I think the OR issue is borderline at most, while if someone reads Jimbo's quote and assumes that both Wikipedia and Conservapedia content are part of a "free culture" that "knows no bounds," and copies from one to the other, the copyvio will not be borderline. Thus, I think there is more harm in not clarifying a possible misimpression than in stretching a strict interpretation of OR. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
How is it borderline? Its unpublished synthesis of material from primary sources that are involved in the article, how is that borderline?Tmtoulouse 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tmtoulouse in regard to the addition being original research (the fact that I happen to think the addition was probably correct is of no consequence). I think the best approach here is to encourage Jimbo to correct his previous statement, which we could then be mentioned here, and I've already asked Jimbo to do so. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If the concern is OR, that doesn't strike me as any better. Personally contacting someone in an article to get a statement from them is classic OR. And, depending on what venue he issued his correction in, it could be argued whether it would be a RS or appropriate source to include.
I still see the OR problem with my edit as marginal. While use of primary sources is discouraged in favor of secondary sources, it is not absolutely forbidden, and Schlafly's comments fall under the SELFPUB exception for information about his own site. So I think his comment can come in.
So what about the "synthesis" issue? I can see why one would think that taking Schlafly's statement, comparing it to the GFDL, and declaring them to be incompatible, violates the "A and B, then C" prohibition. And someone familiar with the GFDL would immediately know from Schlafly's remark that content from one was not to be copied to the other. However, there are many casual Wikipedia users who aren't familiar with copyleft, for whom that would not be obvious. In the interests of preventing people from inadvertently violating copyright, we should be as explicitly clear as possible that they are incompatible, rather than counting on readers to draw the inference from Schlafly's remark. And although I hate to invoke IAR (which has created so many issues recently), I think this has a higher priority than OR concerns. Up above, even you (Tmtoulouse) consented to letting in some "potentially WP:OR items" because it was "only fair."
Or perhaps you feel that the OR came from using it as a counterpoise to Jimbo's quote, i.e., that it was a "synthesis" of Jimbo and Schlafly. Again, I think clarifying a potential misimpression should take precedence over a strict OR interpretation. But if that's the issue, it could be moved to a different paragraph and edited it so that it was not a direct response to Jimbo, rather than deleted entirely.
At any rate, if you're not going to accept a clarification of the licensing issue, it might be better to just remove the Jimbo quote as potentially misleading. People who go on to read the source might still be misled, but at least Wikipedia itself would not be propagating a misimpression.
I should note that the comment had already been removed from Schafly's talk page by the time I checked out Conservapedia (he didn't archive when he cleared out his old business). I was pointed to the link by a talkback on one of the blogs (which set off another round of "the GFDL is too complex for him? what a moron!" posts). However, even if I could find the blog again, citing it would replace the OR issue with a RS issue. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, give me time to digest all the various wiki policy pages and your edit again and I will see if my mind changes about it. I am sympathetic to getting as much factual information in article as possible. The weight of my opinion in this manner should be taken with a grain of salt since I haven't been editing wikipedia very long. Tmtoulouse 03:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this (should have checked), but fyi. No reason to worry about WP:NOR if Jimbo has already corrected himself, supposedly multiple times. I'll look for such an instance. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't find one. Perhaps the criticism is being made but is not being reported. I'll ask him to clarify again. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps another approach would be to contact Schlafly and recommend that he should make a statement about his copyright licensing on his own site, for the sake of his own editors and potential contributors. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I think that this page she be protected. Although (and I agree) some people think the conservapedia is a idiotic, hypocratic pile of rubbish, that is not for me or any other to say on Wikipedia, and this page is becoming quite vandalised. Matt. P 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Its coming in and a very slow rate, there is plenty of people that have this on their watch list at the moment, we have managed to revert all the vandalism very quickly. I don't think protection is needed at all. Tmtoulouse 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking out.Matt. P 13:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Relative quality of Conservapedia and Wikipedia

After reading Conservapedia's concerns about Wikipedia, I decided to do some measuring of their relative quality. The result is my Relative quality of Conservapedia and Wikipedia article on my own Wiki. I don't know if any of the info in that would be considered useful here, but I'm certain that adding it to the article myself would be a conflict of interest. -Harmil 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I plan for this to be an ongoing article (hence the dates in the section headings). It's unfair to assume that Conservapedia will start off as high-quality as Wikipedia, so the real goal of the analysis is to see if it is catching up or not. The initial results are poor, as one might expect. However, if they open up account creation again, they might improve. Time will tell. -Harmil 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a fine thing to do, but I don't see any particular reason that the two have to overlap. What I'm measuring is the quality differential over time to see if it converges or diverges. -Harmil 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, comparing Conservapedia with Wikipedia as of 2007 seems to me to be like comparing the baseball skills of someone in the Little League and someone in the National League. You can do it, but what's the point? They're not even in the same league. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That might seem fair, but read what I wrote on that page. I call out two scenarios: random pages (sure, we expect a new effort to not do as well, there, but the results are rather dramatic, including one citation that's a link to a caricature of Hitler with no text, and out of my random sampling NO pages that have any citations that back up their content... NONE); and a second scenario where I compare one of the articles that Conservapedia calls out as specifically improving on the deficiencies of Wikipedia (Benjamin Franklin). It's not a comparison of article count or of overall capacity to deal with the "whole of human knowledge," as I think Mr. Wales put it, but a simple evaluation of their claim that they're including only factual and well-cited information that removes Wikipedia's biases. At this time, that claim appears to be false... my ongoing study aims to determine how that changes over time. -Harmil 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding Dpbsmith's point: Harmil's page is a response to Conservapedia's criticisms of Wikipedia. Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia as of 2007, not the 2002 incarnation of Wikipedia. That's why Harmil is comparing Wikipedia 2007 to Conservapedia 2007. -Eisnel 19:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out that the Conservapedia entry on Josef Stalin is rife with factual inaccuracies, not to mention the fact that the writing is awful. It sounds, actually, like it was written by a fifth grader.

--CCJ 16:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of errors there, and there are lots of errors here. But the difference is here, anyone can correct them; there -- not so much. Thus, the Conservatives are told King James I of England is still a "confirmed bachelor", and that Henry Liddell's relatives have "royal" titles, while Wikipedians are told the name of King James's wife, and recognize that peerage titles aren't "royal titles". So when Andrew Schlafly doesn't understand something, such as Catholicism's views on evolution, or what "royalty" is, there's no chance of Conservapedia getting it right. - Nunh-huh 01:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Give Conservapedia a chance. I regularly contribute here and look forward to contributing there as well. It's incumbent on everyone to make sure that the truth and facts are revealed to anyone that searches for them. Jtpaladin 15:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

... as long as you don't search for the truth and facts about sex of course[2].;-) Fram 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

New sources, including where this article is cited

http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/03/05/cq_2356.html may have some good material from Schlafly about the "why" of creation http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/03/conservapedia_howler_of_the_da.php Criticism of the lecture series and the homeschooled aspect of the wiki http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/conservapedia-the-word-says-it-all/ And NYtime sources this article bringing up the issue of the neutrality flag. Tmtoulouse 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


From the CQ article (http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/03/05/cq_2356.html) there is some new material that I think might worth working in,first is a couple quotes one from a wikipedia admin and a response by Schalfly about the perceived bias:

Schlafly says he also suspects anti-American sentiment fuels the many British spellings of words he’s found on the site. Wikipedia officials deny this, as well as Schlafly’s other charges of left-leaning bias. “Anyone who has edited a political topic can tell you that it has plenty of Republicans and conservatives, and they get their points of view represented in articles,” says Dan Smith, a Wikipedia administrator who is among the site’s most prolific editors. But Schlafly says Wikipedia makes conservatives feel unwelcome: “The mob rule on Wikipedia tends to drive out conservatives and tends to drive out intelligent contributors.”

And then some interesting quotes from Schalfly about recent vandalism:

And lately, Schlafly says, that same mob has turned up on his cyber-doormat. Maverick conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan directed his readers to Conservapedia last month. They promptly swamped it with parody entries, causing its servers to crash. Schlafly says the attack “shocked” him: “It’s one thing to disagree, another thing to try to destroy something you disagree with.” But he also appears to endorse the old-media view that there’s no such thing as bad publicity. “We’ve survived it,” he says, “and in the long run it might have helped us by attracting attention to our site.”

I will think about how to work it in, but if others see a way before me be BOLD! Tmtoulouse 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd suspect a major flux of parodists hit Conservapædia when it was featured on PZ Myers's blog Pharyngula [3]. Anville 20:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The wave of parody seems to have ebbed, but it has left some flotsam cast up on the Conservapedian beach, not all of which has been gathered and removed. I'm not exactly sure what's happening, but apparently new account creation is only enabled during new time windows and by application to the Eagle Forum. In effect new users are admitted in small groups, probably (guessing here) at a time when it's convenient for someone to watch and see what their initial behavior is like. Conservapedia's Alexa rank is now up to 59,587, but Alexa's "reach" and traffic charts look to me as if there was a peak around Feb 28/March 1st, which was when the liberal bloggers were having a lot of fun and there was a lot of parody vandalism.
The number of editors and amount of editing activity is considerably up from where it was a week ago. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

License?

Compare this quite interessting discussion: Aschlafly#CreationWiki. --Nemissimo II 19:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

US/UK date

Anyone know how to fix the third box at the top of the page? It says the article appeared on 3 August 2007 -- impossible, in this space/time continuum. At first I thought it was a spoof or vandal, but now I see it is just a cross-Atlantic miscommunication for 8 March. Please always write the month as a word, not just in xx/xx/xxxx format. BrainyBabe 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole "MM/DD vs DD/MM" issue is weird. Changed it to "March 8, 2007" :) --Sid 3050 02:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. en-wiki

Obviously, Conservapedia equates "Wikipedia" and "English Wikipedia", but we should not. NPOV policy holds for all WP projects, but the era notation and spelling issues, being English-specific, are restricted to en-wiki. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies/slanted information

Before I edited it, this article claimed that Conservapedia was formed as a project "by" homeschooled children, when in reality it was created "for" such children as clearly stated in the article. It is slightly saddening that a user would state this blatent lie for the sake of turning people off of Conservapedia. Slavik262 22:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, having read a number of Conservapedia's articles, and the talk pages, it appears as though the authors of a number of them are school aged children. Also, according to an interview with Schlafly in The Guardian, it is written that Conservapedia is, indeed, "a project for home-schooled children" which could be interpreted in a number of ways. 1) It is a project to create a conservative encyclopedia for use as reference material for school aged children, or 2) that the project itself gives school aged children an opportunity to conduct research and post their findings. I think both interpretations have evidence supporting them. Certainly, Schlafly has indicated that it is the former, but the quality of many of the articles, coupled with the writing style and voice of many of them, suggest the latter. Perhaps the Eagle Forum could offer some insight as to whom they are offering usernames with which to edit the articles. I don't think that it was inherently a "blatent lie", as such a lie would have to have been made in bad faith. Also, Conservapedia does not need any help turning people off to it - it's poor quality and limited review (not to mention the proliferation of quetionable sources, when sources are provided at all) suceed in delegitimizing the project. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html
Update I believe the following excerpt from Schlafly's talk page supports, in part, the notion that some conservapedia articles are written by children:

We've made you SYSOP so you can block directly now, Hojimachong. Welcome! It's great having your very high quality edits and observations.--Aschlafly 00:16, 11 March 2007 (EST)

You've made my day, Mr. Schlafly, and that isn't a joke; My school's basketball team took 6th in state today! Thank you very much, and I promise to work to make Conservapedia a better place for all. --Hojimachong 00:33, 11 March 2007 (EST)

That's great! I coached student basketball for a few years, and found it very enjoyable. We never did as well as your school's team, however. Congratulations!--Aschlafly 00:47, 11 March 2007 (EST)

140.160.66.48 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


The conservapedia FAQ at

http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:FAQ

Explicitly states that it was created as a class project for homeschoolers.

Laukiz 10:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


At the end of this "lecture on American history"

http://www.conservapedia.com/American_History_Lecture_One

The children are instructed to create entries upon which they will be graded:

Assignment: Enter or improve at least 10 topics relating to this lecture. Example topics are "Mayflower Compact" or "Puritans". Simply input one of those or another historical term in the upper-left hand box and click "Go". If the term does not yet exist, then click the link to enter a description. If the term is already described, then improve the description or enter another historical term.

The instructor will be evaluate your work based the number and quality of the entries, with feedback provided on your "Talk" page here. At the end of this course there will be recognition and ranking of the top students. Examinations will only be provided to students who complete these assignments.

Laukiz 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Horrendous Inaccuracies

I think there should be something in this article about how inaccurate conservapedia is. Just look at their article on England [England]: http://www.conservapedia.com/England

It's just nonsense- Wales and Cornwall were "independent Pictish kingdoms" under Roman rule!!! The Picts were from Scotland; Wales and Cornwall, not to mention England, didn't even exist until after the Romans left; all of modern day England, Wales and Cornwall were under Roman rule. I wouldn't even say I had a great knowledge of history, but I know that much.

If anyone had any other examples of ludicrous inacurracies in these sort of articles (ie not related to evolutin/ religion/ other typical conservative bugbears) could you post them here, along with any citations from newspapers or blogs pointing out inaccuracies. We should think about starting on a new section. 217.196.239.189 11:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • While I think this might be a good idea, it runs really close to original research. The article would have to be written pretty carefully to avoid that. The whole idea of a section about inaccuracies may be an "unpublished synthesis of published material." --Transfinite (Talk) 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I was worried abou the original research thing too. That's why I suggested finding blogs or newspapers which mention the factual innaccuracies. It's just I think it's a really important point to make- the factual inaccuracy in conservapadia isn't just in articles about evolution/ religion etc. I think the Guardian referenced a Conservapedia article which declared that Stalin was defeated by Hitler- anyone remember that? Seanjw 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia should address their page on the "liberal bias" and "slander that Wikipedia alledgedly throws at them. This one is actually an example of spin:

"Initially a Wikipedia admin named "Nearly Headless Nick" deleted, without explaining his decision, an entry about Conservapedia. Later, in response to publicity, Wikipedia posted a new entry about Conservapedia. Wikipedia's entry is filled with obvious bias, numerous errors, out-of-date citations, and self-serving false statements.[10] For example, the Wikipedia entry made the absurd claim that Conservapedia says the "General Theory of Relativity" has "nothing to do with physics." Wikipedia's claim was completely false and unsupported by its citations. After this example was posted here, Wikipedia removed its error but has left other false and outdated claims in its entry, reflecting Wikipedia's pervasive bias. "

When you look at the edit history on their article, this is what it says:

"Einstein’s Theory of Relativity states that mass curves because space bends it."

That's it. I ove the fact that they seem unaware that their edits are open to public scrutiny.--Art8641 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Before we get carried away, there is nothing wrong with them saying that our theories of Gravitation are unproven: that is why they are Theories not Laws. It doesn't mean that anyone thinks gravity doesn't exist, it just means we still don't fully understand, and cannot completely prove, how it works. And there's nothing wrong with that. So maybe we should take that line out of the article. Lordjim13 09:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Went ahead and did it. They are still having a lot of trouble with the Newton article over there though. How it could ever be considered a reliable reference for anything (even to the degree wikipedia can) is beyond me... Lordjim13 10:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is something wrong with them saying theories of Gravity are unproven - they are clearly misunderstanding what "theory" means in this sense, and it seems you are unclear as well. I think you intend to make the point that much of what science claims as "fact" is in truth provisional and open to re-interpretation with new evidence and data. Faith in contrast typically does not allow for this sort of provisional truth. And I think that is really what wikipedia in a broad sense is trying to address - so much of our knowledge is disputed and open to interpretation, and therefore we have to allow for the aspect of what is provisional truth and what is "true." Conservapedia, if we ignore the outlandish stuff and assume that down the road they will get a bit more rigour in is surely a work in progress nevertheless seem bent on determining by fiat what is "true" and what is not. IOW, there is nothing close to the "consensus" that exists here.

I'm sure there could be an argument for a "liberal" bias here, but where it truly lies, those areas should be cleaned up and addressed. To suppose, however, that "liberals" can't produce entries without bias is clearly not the case here because even if it is true that wikipedia is swarming with "liberals" much here is neutral and much here is even-handed. Looking at the abortion article - one of the list of "biased" articles on Conservapedia - tells me that their complaint is one of mere emphasis, that their version of the truth is not front in centre even though the aspect they want emphasized - that abortion increases risk to women - is in fact covered at length.

That said, while it is easy to smirk at the nonsense currently there at conservapedia, that doesn't mean their critiques are not without merit. I think it is incumbent on us to seriously address their concerns and ensure that any biases we might have are not ruling the roost. We have done great things here at wikipedia, but we can always do better.

Funny though this critique of non-American English usage - it seems in my experience when I use British or Canadian spellings, more often than not these words are "corrected" to American style. Cheers Canada Jack 20:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just read the article on New Zealand/Aotearoa ... "In 1456 the Russian empire claimed the southern Island of New Zealand and named it Kiervniev, or "Southernmost province". Their capital Vodkagrad, or Vodka City, is named after its abundance of wild potatoes" ( very untrue by the way (; )... maybe a page on similarities between Conservapedia and Uncyclopedia ?Boomshanka

What is there to Remove from this Article? Conservapedia is the Problem.

This article is completely and neutraly informative of Conservapedia. The website itself is completely biased, and if one were to view it this fact would become apparant. It is soley a mockery of open-information sharing and a terrible excuse for the freedom of speech/expression; they limit editing of article to have neutral and factual information. The format is almost exactly the same as Wikipedia, almost making it seem that the creaters copy-pasted the source code. Note that almost every page has a biblical reference or a praisal to a conservative viewpoint. These biases corrupt the whole concept of posting online information. Also notice that controversial topics, such as President Bush, conveniently lack an edit tab. They prevent debate over topics, force their opinion, and lack any scientific or factual references. As much as one supports a conservative viewpoint, this has simply crossed the line. My question is this: After examining Conservapedia, what specific part of this article is biased to an extent that it is not purely fact? This article should stand as is with no dispute.
Ethant87 02:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes this "NPOV" can be a pain. it would be so much easier to say "Conservapedia is a roiling piece of crap - don't bother". But, no, we have to be the adults and act appropriately. Sigh.

Hwarwick 22:40 12 March 2007 (PST)

Conservapedia could be one of the greatest contributions to wikipedia ever - the regular attention to factual inaccuracies, grammatical errors, and the opportunity to add wonderful balance to articles by addressing the conservative point of view can only serve to increase interest in wikipedia and improve its content. Seriously, this could be bigger and better than the Nature article. Sidebar - do they realize that the contents of wikipedia are not fixed? That their comments are probably only valid for as long as it takes someone to read the change and adjust the appropriate wikipedia page? Methinks they are missing the point... WLU 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the most fantastic use of an awful website ever. We adopt this as a Wikipedia activity, call it something like ConservaWatch and use Conservapedia as a reference for the gazillion things that need doing. --Paul Carpenter 17:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Loopy556 21:20, 13 March 2007 Methinks that you are missing the point that conservapedia is just trying to make up its own version of reality. The site is more like a praise to god for making everything. If you look at their "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" the first thing they criticize is that wikipedia allows B.C.E. Plus it says that editiors are six times more liberal than the american public but thats just the editors. But the public writes the articles.

Conservapedia is not a problem. Contributing to Wikipedia with NPOV is the problem. Paradoxos 05:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright images?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Mikhail_Gorbachev - in articles like this, aren't they breaching copyright? (I could be wrong but that looks like a professional image to me)? Has this been discussed anywhere? --Fredrick day 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be to me, but without any sources, it's OR. Haven't seen it discussed anywhere. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Schlafly has made a comment that he isn't going to put much emphasis on image copyright issues, but to expand from that would be OR. (and it isn't notable without someone else picking the matter up). JoshuaZ 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So basically I can get a decent source that matches WP:ATT if I inform all of the copyright owners about what's going on and wait for the fireworks and the reporting of the fireworks :-) --Fredrick day 19:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[Joshua's right, striking my thoughtless comment]Guettarda 20:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A note to all, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles, not discussing how to create problems for the subjects of articles. JoshuaZ 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an interesting image on the dinosaur entry on Conservapedia up until a few days ago. The image is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jesus-on-dinosaur.jpg. The image is not there now but it was. Here is a screenshot of the page before the image was scrubbed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jesus-dino-conservapedia.png I believe it is fair to add this picture to the Wiki entry on Conservapedia because it is representative of their overall content. I added this image to the Conservapedia entry but it was deleted. I believe it should be added back to the page. Timwayne 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Timwayne has made incorrect statements about the copyright status of images, and the validity of this screenshot is probably about as accurate. Andjam 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Statement amended. Screenshot is probably accurate. Andjam 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

this revision from last month, although not an exact match, seems to be fairly similar. Apologies to Timwayne. However, including this image and the like is original research. Andjam 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't be sure whether the image is by creationists or their parodyists. Conservapedia's version doesn't say the passenger was Jesus (it was called "StockDinosaur.jpg"). Jesus is mentioned in the file name only on wikipedia. If the passenger were Jesus, I'd say it was a parody, as Jesus was after Noah's flood. (Too much original research by me ...) Again, sorry for being too harsh. Andjam 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. It is possible it was not Jesus. That was an assumption on my part. (sorry). However, a human riding on a dinosaur is still, in my opinion, certainly representative of the overall quality and accuracy of content of Conservapedia. This picture is, as the saying goes, worth a thousand words. For this reason I believe it should be added back to the page. In addition, since the dinosaur-man painting had been on the dinosaur entry for several weeks, I deem it unlikely to have been the work of parodists. I am new to this and certainly want to play by the rules. That said, I am inclined to leave the picture on. Respectfully, Timwayne 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
further, I think the screen capture [4] represents a current event in action: the Conservapedia redacting its pages of embarrassing information (for example, see the history of the Conservapedia unicorn entry [5] ). Timwayne 05:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Although the dinosaur article is much better than it was, the "Jesus on a Dinosaur" picture is back up. If you click on the picture for a larger version it is explicitly captioned "Jesus on a Dinosaur".

--Laukiz (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to this image, it seems to be uploaded today (ie after this kerfuffle). Andjam 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Digging through the history, the "Jesus riding a dinosaur" image was first included in the article 04:16, February 23, 2007 (UTC), by User:TrueReaganConservative [6](the image itself, StockDinosaur.jpg [7], is still on the site). The picture was removed from the article by User:Aschlafly 16:33, March 1, 2007 (UTC) with the edit summary "the drawing, made to look like a picture, is not appropriate in a factual resource" [8]. --Transfinite (Talk) 02:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Update "Jesus riding a dinosaur" has been deleted. [9] I know I'll miss dinosaur cowboy Jesus. --Transfinite (Talk) 03:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Schlafly page

Right now the search term 'Andrew Schlafly' redirects to Conservapedia. This is probably the best place to ask, do people think there's enough info on him to create his own page? Lots of notable sources I'd think. WLU 20:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he meets WP:BIO- there are many sources that mention him in the context of Conservapedia, but none that are both non-trivial and reliable. JoshuaZ 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes and Changes

Change to clearly distinguish from Wikipedia

Delete " wiki project aiming to construct a " in order to eliminate any perception that Wikipedia is affiliated with Conservapedia. Implement change no later than March 19, 2007.

Registered Wikipedia users distinguish "wiki" and "Wikipedia", but the causual or novice user may not readily distinguish the difference. With my experience as a registered Wikipedia user, I read the excerpt three times to fully understand there was NO affiliation between the two, and my reading comprehension is at least average. Also, the Conservapedia website graphically emulates Wikipedia, minus the globe.

I'd like to stick the " wiki project aiming to construct a " back in, but not sure where since this is not my pet project.

Start Change

Conservapedia is an encyclopedia project with articles that are purportedly pro-American, socially conservative and supportive of conservative Christianity. Conservapedia uses MediaWiki software, thereby producing similar webpage graphics with the same functionality as Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not affiliated with Conservapedia.

The project was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, in response to an alleged anti-Christian and anti-American bias in the articles of Wikipedia. According to a FAQ on Conservapedia it originated from a project for homeschooled children, and its creator believes it could eventually evolve into a "reference for teachers".[1] In addition to its role as an encyclopedia, Conservapedia is also used by Andrew Schlafly's Eagle Forum University. Material for various online courses, for example, on American History, is stored on the site.[2][3][4] Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum.[2] Andrew Schlafly has stated that he hopes the site becomes a general resource for United States teachers and work as a general counterpoint to alleged liberal bias on Wikipedia as Fox News does for the news media.[1][5] Its earliest articles date from 22 November 2006.

End Change

Paradoxos 02:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Add context, move under Criticism and vandalism heading or move to footnote or delete

Propose to add context and move under Criticism and vandalism. Implement change no later than March 20, 2007.

I honestly do not understand the encylopedia value of the paragraph without additional information. How is this important to the Wikipedia entry? I've tried, but can't justify the paragraph in my simple mind. Is Conservapedia fed up with website vandalism and is just threating? If so, then they're in the same boat as Wikipedia. Apparently, Wikipedia experiences a lot of vandalism, intentional or otherwise. Even though I feel Conservapedia purports to be an encyclopedia resource, they are still entitled to tell a story how they see fit.

Start change

On its main page, Conservapedia claims that posting obscene material or vandalizing the site is illegal, and could result in a jail sentence of ten years. It makes these claims on the basis of Title 18 of the United States Code, specifically 18 USC § 1470 (with respect to obscenity) and 18 USC § 1030 (with respect to vandalism).

End change

Paradoxos 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Added self reported in introductory sentence

Conservapedia is a, self reported conservative, wiki online encyclopedia project that can be used free of cost, with a re-use license that is in development but not yet formalized.

Conservapedia self reports to be conservative.
argument: Conservapedia is a liberal alternative to Wikipedia. Absurd statement, but is worthy of Wikipedia inclusion because the statement is attributable, citable, NPOV, and from a reliable source (for the purpose this argument). Because A Source purports to be affiliated with a particular category, does not mean the claim is true, and is worthy of editorial clarification as long as the editorial clarification is unbiased and has no apparent POV.

Added liberal in second introductory sentence

The project was founded in response to perceived, liberal, anti-Christian and anti-American bias in the articles of Wikipedia.[5]

"liberal bias" is stated explicitly on the Conservapedia website and recited by other sources. Editors may consider adding purported or another delimiter.

παράδοξος 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NPR story

Schlafly was on NPR's All Things Considered today. It's already been mentioned on this page, but editors might like a pointer to the story, so you can use it as a source for the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


The NPR story motivated me to look up conservapedia. I visited their site and it graphically emulates Wikipedia. . Wikipedia talks about Fringe Theories, but there are a significant number of Americans who see the world through this (conservapedia) lens. When does a Fringe Viewpoint become a legitimate viewpoint worthy of an entry? Schlafly mentioned Wikipedia is unduly liberal, but that statement contradicts the whole NPOV ideal. For me, it is a real eye-opener concerning NPOV and is going to take me a couple days to read through the Wikipedia material and contemplate the philosophical implications -- cool stuff. Paradoxos 12:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"A Fact Of One's Own"

From the linked article: "Conservapedia, as its name implies, does not aspire to objectivity. Nor does it aspire to fairness. It aspires to give you the impression that there's always a second, equally valid interpretation of the facts."

I would argue that this is totally inaccurate. Conservapedia does not argue that there's a "second, equally valid interpretation". It argues that there is ONE correct interpretation, and they've got it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.71.78.212 (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Does not matter what Conservapedia believes. Wikipedia is a different animal with NPOV. Paradoxos 05:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Siegel talked with Schlafly on NPR

The "kangaroo" article was cited there, as well as on this talk page (above). Methinks Robert Siegel reads talk pages... Interested parties should access the interview and listen on line. I heard it while cleaning stalls, and laughed myself horse (sorry) at how quickly the article ended once the absurdity of their project was exposed. Almost heard the staff at NPR guffawing in the background. Soltera 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-American editors

For an article on a specifically American topic, there seems to be a lot of non-American editors, as evidenced by the constant British English added to the article. Nevertheless, please do follow WP:ENGVAR and use American English when editing. DHN 20:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That might be an intentional "jab", considering the strict "American spelling" editing rules on their site. But I agree, American spelling is more appropriate in this article. --Transfinite (Talk) 02:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
We do our best, SqueakBox 02:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

More on the origin of conservapedia

While tapping through the site I came across this link: http://www.conservapedia.com/StudyConservapedia It seems to explain some more of the site's origins. It's quite clear that the first articles were written by children - though I suppose that's hardly in doubt and I don't know if it's worth adding to the article.

--Laukiz (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that bit of information could perhaps shed some light on why many of the articles were originally of such poor quality? -- Pellucid 06:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


--paradoxos (talk) It is not up to Wikipedia to judge. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not the moral authority...NPOV.

legal threat

Should we make mention of the legal threat that is on the main page?

Minors under 16 years use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030. We will trace your IP address if necessary.

--Fredrick day 20:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an empty threat to me. First, they don't have CheckUser installed on their server [10]. It is difficult (but not impossible) to associate a username with an IP without that extension. Even if you have an IP, it is somewhat difficult to directly associate an IP to a natural person. Some IPs are dynamic(which based on your ISP), and people can always use tools like Tor to hide thier real IP. It probably shouldn't be added to article until we can determine if they really mean it, or it is just there to scare off vandals. --Transfinite (Talk) 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Not quite. Every website can get information about the ip addresses that access that site and so it wouldnt be difficult to locate an individual's IP address. Of course enforcing that law, especially outside teh US, would prove difficult, SqueakBox 17:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
An empty threat, yes. But I still felt it worth mentioning in the article. Lurker oi! 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is highly notable and contrasts their approach with our more forgiving one, SqueakBox 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like citable evidence that this threat is nonsense, but have been unable to find one. Lurker oi! 17:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well we dont know it is nonsense, all they are actually saying is these alleged offences are punishable by law, SqueakBox 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you say "laughed out of court"? -Wooty Woot? contribs 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Some university computer systems in Australia have on their login screens a warning that unauthorized access to data, and unauthorized editing of data, are criminal offences (2 years and 10 respectively, I think). If vandalism counts as unauthorized editing of data, then it could be a criminal offence. However, the full penalties would probably only apply to really malicious cases (such as private data) rather than vandalism. (But I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and this is original research). Andjam 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the warnings on University computers are aimed at real vandalism, that is, viruses and attempts to damage and disrupt computer systems. I am not aware of any Australian law that prevents a user from entering spurious information on a public contribution site (and in any case, US law doesn't apply outside the US). ~dave
While not a lawyer, too, I agree that the mention of such a policy is partly what makes the site notable in the wiki-world. In my brief stint as an "editor" over there (I am blocked for infinity, or whatever) I asked why the page on GWB couldn't be unblocked and was told there were too many vandals. I am positive that this is true (anyone following the pages on here knows that) but their response is to lock pages and block users at the drop of a hat (or as GWB famously said "the whim of a hat"). It would be interesting to note whether or not they've ever pursued this policy. Just spit-balling here, but if someone is an editor over there, maybe they could ask Schaflafly, or whatever his name is. Menkatopia 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we may need secondary sources for some of this information to avoid WP:OR. Tmtoulouse 18:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I came across a section of wikipedia guideline that mentions the possibility of prosecutions for sustained defacement of wikipedia. (Written by Andjam)

See my comments elsewhere about the random article feature: and "many UK public libraries" have multi-access and one IP address (which can cause problems). Jackiespeel 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

Now, I know Conservapedia is bad and it used to be even worse, but doesn't it seem grossly unfair that we cite outdated articles that have since been changed? We don't even cite how long the false claims on Conservapedia were up. Imagine if someone picked out the least accurate entries ever in Wikipedia and attempted to paint the entire project with those pages; I know for a fact that the Tom Arnold article, for example, is frequently vandalized to say "Tom Arnold is gay." Would it be fair of someone to cite the vandalized article repeatedly without mentioning the repaired article even once? No, of course it wouldn't, but that's what we seem to be doing here. This article needs some serious cleanup. We need a section that mentions something, ANYTHING positive about the project, for example. I mean, there are even sections in the Adolf Hitler article that mention positives to the man. Pellucid 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, which of the examples of negative entries do you think should be removed? Second, regarding the lack of positive material- if you can find any more reliably sourced positive material, it should probably go in, but at present there does not seem to be much of it. JoshuaZ 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Good edit removing the tag Joshua, SqueakBox 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
None of the references to out of date articles are original research. The works cited reference out of date articles. A disclaimer to the effect that they have been corrected can be added, making it clear that we do not imply the idea that they were fixed because of the scrutiny (a technique which they use, dare I say liberally?) Mykll42 00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Noting removal might constitute original research, however many of the specific examples are still the same- also if we are removing examples we might want to expand the Kangaroo material and note that Andrew Schlafly has endorsed the material in particular, see [11] and [12]. JoshuaZ 00:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
That segment was under a subsection specifically devoted to creation theory. Evolutionary theory comes before it in the wiki. Oh well, I can see that nobody here understands why this is unfair. I guess I'll go add to the criticism of the Wikipedia entry that Wikipedia's stance is that "Tom Arnold is gay" and that "Bill O'Reilly is a child molesting pedophile" and all of the other short-lived edits of every article there is here. -- Pellucid 02:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever section it goes under, the bottom line is that unlike "Tom Arnold is gay" it isn't vandalism. Furthermore, the matter is sourced. For that matter, the sources also note the lack of mention of fossils and other issues including that Schlafly defended the entry on NPR. If Jimbo Wales defended the statement ""Tom Arnold is gay"" you might have a point. JoshuaZ 13:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to see your proof that these pages were also not the result of vandalism (the Jesus riding a dinosaur picture, for example, was definitely vandalism). Yes, Conservapedia is even more unreliable than Wikipedia right now, but to cite pages that have been removed or repaired is grossly unfair. Once again, I can dig up some incredibly factually inaccurate Wikipedia entries that were not intended as vandalism if you'd like. -- Pellucid 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, weren't we just discussing the Kangaroo entry which was defended by Schlafly? JoshuaZ 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Pellucid, you say that "to cite pages that have been removed or repaired is grossly unfair", and suggest that it would be unfair to apply the same standard to Wikipedia. In that case, how do you account for the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy? That is a big controversy that cites a Wikipedia article that has since been changed. If it's fair the criticize Wikipedia for errors that have been corrected, then the same standard can be applied to Conservapedia's Kangaroo article. Furthermore, the external sources about the Kangaroo article refer to the earlier version, we can't change those external sources. -Eisnel 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting exercise is to go the "oldest pages" http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Ancientpages and look at the earlier entries which are still up, and which were obviously written by children. A quick scan brought up some interesting facts about the frog's listening ability http://www.conservapedia.com/Frog and about the "surprisingly tolerant" Genghis Khan. http://www.conservapedia.com/Genghis_Khan

--Laukiz (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Written by children? lol, SqueakBox 18:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Genghis was a surprisingly tolerant guy. You know he executed any of his soldiers who he found to have raped anyone? That's pretty good for such an otherwise violent guy. -- Pellucid 14:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you vandalize you go to jail

Main Page From Conservapedia

Minors under 16 years use this site. Posting of obscenity here is punishable by up to 10 years in jail under 18 USC § 1470. Vandalism is punishable up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030.

-this is at the top of their main page now. I'm pretty sure they are totally full of it, but are betting on people being as stupid as if they learned all they know from conservapedia. p.s. i've already been banned from there, it was fun while it lasted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pollard666 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be quite difficult to bring a criminal charge for vandalism of a Wiki. The standards for what the Wiki owner calls vandalism would not likely correspond to a legal definition of vandalism.--RLent 09:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you read the text of the law that they cite, it quite clearly calls out these things:
  • It applies only to "unauthorized access"
  • It applies almost entirely to government and financial sites / systems only
  • Most of the law is built around the concept of financial damages
It would be very hard to demonstrate that any of the above applies to Conservapedia. -Harmil 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

History of wikipedia tag

I can see this getting a "wiki community" tag but is it really a part of wikipedia history? Mediawiki history, sure, but they are in no way affiliated with this site except they use the same software. Mykll42 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's got nothing at all to do with wikipedia history. Apart from the fact they don't like us, but it's too tenuous a connection to call it a fork- there is no WP content there. Lurker oi!
Being discussed at Template talk:Wikipediahistory if anyone would like to chime in. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw that discussion but it seemed to be much larger in scope than just the presence of Conservapedia in the list. I feel qualified to discuss this specific instance but not the larger issues... I'm just too new here. Mykll42 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Free online encyclopedia tag for article keeps being removed. Why?

Free encyclopedias tag for article keeps being removed. Why? Jazzman123 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)jazzman123

That category refers to free encyclopedias. Conservapedia is free as in beer but not free as in speech. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My mistake: Here is what I meant to say: Free encyclopedias tag for article keeps being removed. Why? Jazzman123 23:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)jazzman123

actually there may be some GNU issues so conservapedia might not be free. Jazzman123 23:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)jazzman123

Right, that's what I'm saying. Conservapedia is free as in beer, or gratis, which means it does not cost anything to access it. It is not free as in speech, or libre, which means that its content is not "Free". That category only applies to the latter. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was my previous tag of "General encyclopedias" removed.

Why was my previous tag of "General encyclopedias" removed? Conservapedia has broad range of articles. Jazzman123 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)jazzman123

Conservapedia is set up to cater to a specific community, not to the general public. Lurker oi! 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed a whole lot of uncited/unverifiable content at this article. This is against Wikipedia rules.

I removed a whole lot of uncited/unverifiable content at this article. This is against Wikipedia rules. For example, where does Conservapedia say it is a Conservative Christian site. Please stick to your Wikipedia rules since you claim to be neutral point because that is your policy (NPOV). But I don't see you following your policies here. Jazzman123 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)jazzman123

It freely professes to be a conservative, Christian site. Read its front page, or any interview with Andrew Schlafly. I don't have the time to go through the article right now, but I'll try to revise and source it tonight or tomorrow. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please source all your claims BEFORE putting them on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia rules. Thank you. Jazzman123 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Jazzman123
I didn't add it. Just answering the question you asked here. As I said, I will attempt to fully revise and source in the near future. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Where does Conservapedia say it is a conservative Christian site on its front page as you claim. I am from Missouri. Please show me. Here is their site: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page Jazzman123 23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)jazzman123
"Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America." And it says Conservapedia on the front page. In the About Conervapedia page [13] it says "Now it's time for the Conservatives to get our voice out on the internet!" In the Debate section entitled [14] "Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?" BenjaminS says, "Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible" BenjaminS is one of the founding members of conservapedia. This link to logo discussion certainly implies Christianity [[15]] in that a significant percentage of the proposed logos have a cross as their prime focus. Mykll42 04:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I "give full credit" to Clinton for his diplomatic ability, but that doesn't make me a Democrat. I "give full credit" to Adolf Hitler for his Industrial Management ability, but that doesn't make me a Nazi, either. -- Pellucid 03:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I do, too. And I give full credit to Christianity. But I see no reason to single that out on the front page of my website. Mykll42 04:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
They specify it because they believe that Wikipedia does NOT give full credit to Christianity. It's just like how if every bakery on the block didn't sell cheesecake and you opened a bakery that did, you'd probably specify "we have cheesecake" despite that being something most bakeries wouldn't specifically advertise. -- Pellucid 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that while you are editing on wikipedia, they are "our" policies, not "your" policies and one of them is being WP:CIVIL. Mykll42 03:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Someone has interjected their personal values in the Wikipedia description of Conservapedia. Personally, I believe that statement is true at face value, but the statement is not worthy of an encyclopedia citation and does not reflect the Wikipedia values. Very good point. Paradoxos 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's imagine that someone created "Saudipedia", and the front page said it was going to give "full credit to Saudi Arabia and Islam". Would we not call it a "Saudi Arabian Muslim website"? --Laukiz (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia and the Theory of evolution

You state in this article that Wikipedia follows the mainstream views when it comes to the Theory of evolution. However, it seems to me that the Theory of evolution merely has multiple streams and not one mighty river as the Conservapedia article alludes to.[16] Here is why:

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11 [17][18]

"“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007 [19][20]

"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." - Niles Eldredge]], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14). [21]

Jazzman123 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)jazzman123

well go and argue that over at the TOE page and if you get agreement there, feel free to come and edit this article to match - otherwise it's red herring on this page. --Fredrick day 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Frederick, where is the true consensus? You haven't shown via expert opinion that my quotes are misplaced. Isn't that right? Jazzman123 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)jazzman123
no I'm saying - I'm not here to waste my time with creationist quoteminers, I have other places for those sorts of debates. If you feel there is no common consensus about the TOE - then the TOE page is the place to argue that one - once you have won that argument and the article is changed, THEN you can change the representation of the wikipedia take on the TOE here. Anything else is just puff and dust. --Fredrick day 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You can forget about the "quote mine" red herring. Just simply show the quotes are untrue via your own quotes. I don't believe you can do it. Now I strongly suspect you will decline this challenge once more given the sad state of affairs the evolutionary position currently occupies. Jazzman123 00:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)conservative
What part of 'take it to the appropriate venue' did you not get? If you want to debate evolution, do it on the evolution article talk page. If you can convince enough mods that you're right and they're not, more power to you. But this talk page is to discuss the biases and policies of Conservapedia, not to start dissecting every article contained in Conservapedia. Jackytar 03:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
One final time, you want the TOE page - this page is not a discussion board about the theory of evolution. If you really want to argue such things, I suggest you head over to http://www.evcforum.net or the like when such debate is welcome. --Fredrick day 00:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fredrick day, this is way off-topic here Jazzman123. And it's rather juvenile to claim that his refusal to have an off-topic debate is an automatic admission of defeat. So yeah, your "challenge" is being declined... although I can't figure out what your "challenge" is. Do you want someone to post quotations from experts that seem to disagree with yours? Fredrick already directed you to some places where you might find someone to accept that "challenge". Not here. -Eisnel 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Gregor Mendel influenced Charles Darwin

Article states Darwin influenced Gregor Mendel with reference to Trofim Lysenko's work as a Soviet biologist, and Mendelian genetics are fallacious. Gimme peas i'll show you p's. paradoxos 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC) HagermanBot compromises editorial autonomy