Talk:Conservapedia

Oops
I replaced the text accidentally. I intended to press the preview button and must have pressed save accidentally. Sorry. Proxima Centauri 10:13, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Critical tone
I'm new to WikiIndex, but I can't imagine that its tone is supposed to be so openly critical. Fishal 15:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
 * fundamentalist Christian? site partly devoted to homes schooled children? Sorry, more bias. Nowhere on the site is it described as such. Created by home schooled individuals yes. Wiki for all, not fundamentalists.--Jpatt 17:27, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 * How do you figure a wiki that says that Christian young-earth creationism is unquestionably the absolute truth, and censors and blocks anyone providing facts that dispute that is NOT a fundamentalist Christian site? 92.22.183.214 20:24, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
 * On the Kangaroo article we list the evolution, dreamtime, and young earth creationism views, and give them equal validity, notice that wikipedia instead always give the evolution view and never any other views--Deborah 07:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)


 * The Kangaroo article is actually a prime example. The 'evolution' explanation, and the 'Dreamtime' explanation is one sentence each.  Any attempt to expand that with facts and cites, such as here and here is reverted. The Talk page is also interesting reading. 92.23.39.38 16:46, 31 July 2008 (EDT)


 * What you want Conservapedia to do is give evolution more validity than the other views which gives the impression that the other world views sould be disregarded. --Deborah 17:23, 31 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Teach the Controversy! --Gulik 20:21, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Deborah, firstly, it seems, by what you say, that you see something wrong with adding cited, verifiable facts to a wiki that claims to be an encyclopedia, which, frankly, I simply cannot comprehend at all. Secondly, applying your own reasoning and logic leads to the conclusion that, as things stand right now, the Christian young earth creationism point of view is given substantially more validity than any other (and not just on that article, but on the site as a whole), leading to the conclusion that all other views should be disregarded.  Therefore, your own argument logically leads to the conclusion that Conservapedia is, indeed, a fundamentalist Christian site. 92.2.172.142 22:53, 1 August 2008 (EDT)


 * No, it's a Fundamentalist Liberal-Hating site. The "Christian" thing is kind of optional, seeing how Andy Schlafly has discovered Liberal Contamination in the Bible. --Gulik 00:29, 2 August 2008 (EDT)


 * Deborah, if you seriously think Conservapedia comes across as in any way unbiased, you're only fooling yourself. --Gulik 14:24, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Separating RationalWiki criticism
Disclaimer: I follow both sites with great interest, and have edited on both sites.

I think it would be wise to separate the RW attitude toward CP from the "professional", "dispassionate", "objective", and "level-headed" treatment we should be giving here.

I'd like to take out the "Many criticisms of the site can be found at RationalWiki" line, so that it is clear that these are our criticisms. And then put in a section titled something like "The Conservapedia-RationalWiki war" (there's no denying that that's really what it is about.) In that section we can summarize the RW criticisms, pointing out that RW takes great glee in them. And that CP blames RW for most of its vandalism problems (a claim which I strongly doubt, though one can't tell.)

I'd also like to expand the "evaluation" section (or put in a new one) into a "difficulties" section, pointing out that CP, because of its extreme stances on things, comes under continual attack that sometimes stresses the limits of what an open wiki can stand. Point out the enormous amount of effort the sysops put into banning people, reverting people, bullying people, and generally fending off the multitudinous attacks from the rest of the web.

And, somewhere in all this, point out how that has compromised the goal of providing an educational resource, as seen by the way even non-controversial topics can't make progress. --William Ackerman 17:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
 * Sounds fair. Though should "The War" go under CP or RW?  Or does it need it's own article - "Wiki wars" or whatever? Such an article might also refer to Librapedia, RWW, Creation Wiki  Evowiki and Atheism.wikia.  Or would such an article run counter to the ethos of this site?--Bob M 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
 * I lean towards putting it under CP. The war tends to be about CP but by RW.  Most of what would go into the section would describe CP, so that's where it belongs.  A mention and link in the RW article, of course.  As far as a separate article, or even a category of such, I'm too new a user here to take that step.  Is that something this site should be going into?  Not for me to say. William Ackerman 14:23, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Lengthy criticisms
I dislike CP as well, but Wikiindex seems to be, well, an index: a very short description of the wikis, some technical details, some links. CP is unique in that it has a whole entire wiki dedicated to criticizing it and drawing attention to its worst abuses and most comical moments. Isn't that sort of thing beyond the scope of this site? 74.7.166.234 14:42, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * Looking at Special:Longpages, it basically has the longest description of any wiki. (Uncyclopedia has more bytes, but has a 325 word description compared to Conservapedia's 1661 words; Transontologia is an unwikified cut-n-paste)  --Interiot 15:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * I think it's important to note who edits the page to figure out why the criticism section is so long. User: Proxima Centauri is an active contributer to RationalWiki, as are User:Gulik and User:Barbara Shack. 74.215.185.102 15:29, 13 November 2008 (EST)
 * Well, I think it's borderline ridiculous. Link to CP, link to the RW entry on this Index, let the rest speak for itself.  I think there is especially no need for specific incidents to be reported, in detail, on an indexing site.  Fishal 01:19, 14 November 2008 (EST)

User:Interiot is a Conservapedian as is User:Fishal. I don't know about the bunch of numbers. They pointed out that we're RationalWikians. They didn't point out that they're Conservapedians. That's dishonest. Proxima Centauri 14:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)


 * I've made a dozen or so edits to CP, mostly talk. (I am one of the few who actually has violated that "90% talk rule", but my account has only been banned twice, once for criticizing somebody or other, and once by mistake.)  My main connection to CP is as an editor of CP's article on Wikipedia, where I'm basically an advocate of not sinking to CP's level by stating opinions as if they were facts.  Fishal 07:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)


 * I don't know who the first BoN was, but I was the second one. Does it matter, though? Whether or not the people pointing out that this article was written by the enemies of CP doesn't negate the fact that this article was written by the enemies of CP, does it? JazzMan 18:31, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 * Go figure, the criticism is back. Why don't we just make this page a link to RationalWiki? That's the only reason this article seems to exist. JazzMan 20:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)

Racist anti-white anti-christian people are managing Wikiindex now? Why the hell Conservapedia needs a criticims section no other wiki has one! Eros of Fire 14:07, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Come on... it is just an index! If you want criticism, go to Wikipedia! That section must be moved. Eros of Fire 14:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Or deleted...Eros of Fire 14:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * A general shortlist of criticisms is appropriate, I think, since, well, it's hard to talk about something like CP (parts of which border on a hate site) without being critical, and a (brief) description of the shennanigans that go on there could be appropriate in a general description. What is not helpful in an index is a lengthy, mind-numbing, RationalWiki-style point-by-point trudge through all of CP's problems.  Fishal 15:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Go ahead, keep deleting the "Criticism" section
I'll put it back, and add more items each time. Eris knows I've got NO shortage of material. (Sorry, Proxima, I tried, but some bunch of numbers just _couldn't_ bear to see Andy's honor besmirched.) --Gulik 20:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * I am not pro Conservapedia. I just don't agree to criticism sections taking up entire articles. -Anon
 * Are there any sysops around here who aren't part of CP or RW who could tell us if a criticism section fits the goals of this site? JazzMan 23:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 * It is the only wiki with one!!!Eros of Fire 07:06, 19 November 2008 (EST)
 * So it is the only wiki in the whole wikiindex whose own editors are not the ones who edit its entry but its enemies... It is the only thing we get when liberal political correctness control all the media!Eros of Fire 07:18, 19 November 2008 (EST).

The evolution section has no sense. i have deleted it for the good.Eros of Fire 12:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)

It is like saying just becuase a place uses the wiki format it has to leave everyone to freely edit it, even when these edits are against the original spirit of the wiki. It is not true even in Wikipedia.Eros of Fire 12:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)
 * Ignorance is not a point of view. --Gulik 13:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I personally think the incredibly long list of criticisms should be replaced by an external link. Its not that I support CP (no way, their article on Barack Obama includes debunked rumors), but that huge list is to much for a WikiIndex article. Maybe we should have an organized vote to establish a consensus. --Elassint, 11 19 2008 talk

I don't want to get into a wheel war over blocking and unblocking. Elassint and I are both sysops. Proxima Centauri 16:53, 19 November 2008 (EST)

I have made a more conservapedia-friendly article, please do not attack external links that are not neutral at all.Eros of Fire 17:38, 23 November 2008 (EST)
 * Check out the convo here. I'm fine with taking out the links (if that is the final comprimise), but I don't agree to many of your other changes. For example, you added that users were blocked for adding "non-christian information"; not only is this not really true, but it's more of a criticism than a compliment, when is what I assume you were going for. Also, conservatives do criticize CP, so I don't know why you keep removing that. JazzMan 18:35, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Wikiindex
I have been asked how much criticism is appropriate in the this Conservapedia article.

May I remind everyone that you are now reading a page on the WikiIndex? I believe that everything is on-topic somewhere. However, that does not mean that everything is on-topic here at WikiIndex.

The WikiIndex page "The Conservapedia RationalWiki war" has been deleted because as far as I can tell (a) a better place for that content is at http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Essay:The_Conservapedia_RationalWiki_War, and (b) that war is not a wiki, and therefore off-topic for WikiIndex.

Given that there is an entire wiki dedicated to criticizing Conservapedia, I fail to see why that criticism needs to be re-iterated here at WikiIndex. And so I fail to understand why this WikiIndex page needs a criticism section.

Nevertheless, mentioning closely-related wiki is helpful for our target audience, and so I find the bullet point entirely appropriate in this article.
 * RationalWiki, an entire wiki originally founded to criticize Conservapedia

Is it obvious to everyone that I am strongly biased? --DavidCary 09:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

More discussion at Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki. --DavidCary 09:42, 24 November 2008 (EST)

I like this last version, look neutral to me.Eros of Fire 11:35, 24 November 2008 (EST)
 * Me too. Hopefully everyone is in agreement now? I'm going to remove the edit-warring template, as a sign of hope and faith (ugh I can't believe I said that -- maybe I should add "change" as well ;0) JazzMan 14:49, 24 November 2008 (EST)

The Barack Obama addition is not needed, it already explains they do not like liberals, and Obama is one. Please keep the article on the state of the last compromise reached. Eros of Fire 13:45, 25 November 2008 (EST)
 * Their hatred of Barack HUSSEIN!!!@!!@!one! Obama is sort of in a class by itself and probably deserves special mention. Did you know that in addition to being a card-carrying member of the HomoMuslimoFascist conspiracy, he's also a Communist and a mind-controlling supervillain? It must be true, Andy Schlafly says so.  And reverts anyone who tried to say otherwise. --Gulik 14:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)
 * I don't know that it deserves special mention (where does it stop? why not mention all the crazy? Then we are back where we started) however it's clear that the Obama page is a beast of its own. But! This is more an Andy+Parodists issue, not as much a CP issue. There has been intense discussion for at least a week now about the Muslim section, and many sysops are for removing it. JazzMan 13:11, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * From what I've seen, most of you over there are for removing it, but it'll never happen. Fishal 13:16, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * Andy is Conservapedia. The management there don't even pretend to be accountable to us lumpenproleteriat.  He owns it, oversees it on a daily basis, and happily deletes everything on it he doesn't like.  His fixations are its fixations.  If you think otherwise, Jazz, you're only fooling yourself. Edit to add:  Now about a section on their "management", the nigh-impossibility of any sort of appeals, and the general "Stalinist Labor Camp" vibe the place gives off to newbies arbitrary management? --Gulik 13:54, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * I think there should be a section warning potential users that they can get blocked for doing things that they don't know are wrong. I'm not sure what we can do as we agreed to accept independent arbitration. Proxima Centauri 16:43, 26 November 2008 (EST)
 * Good idea. I've started a "Editors' Guidelines" section, which I'm sure could be expanded upon.  And I stand by my misstatements. --Gulik 16:25, 27 November 2008 (EST)
 * I disagree and have reverted accordingly. They seem to present your personal opinions and not the actual policy of the site. Although Wikiindex does not appear to have a neutrality policy akin to that of Wikipedia, I fail to see how such highly subjective "guidelines" fall into the charter of Wikiindex. We are not offering such "advice" for any other site listed here at Wikiindex and its inclusion is inflammatory. Surely editors can figure out from the current description whether Conservapedia is a wiki they would enjoy (or loathe) working on. --MarvelZuvembie 17:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)

Sysops and blocks
By and large the section accurately reflected what happens on the site. The stated "policy" of the site is one thing, what actually happens there is another. I intend to replace the section (having removed what I regard as a couple of references that overstep the mark). --Horace 18:09, 28 November 2008 (EST)
 * It's still biased and unnecessary. It's not our job to "protect" people from overzealous sysops. Caveat emptor. --MarvelZuvembie 19:53, 28 November 2008 (EST)
 * And I've reverted it right back. I've been watching CP for over a year now, and those are their policies.  It ain't pretty.  --Gulik 21:16, 28 November 2008 (EST)
 * I'm glad someone's watching them, but that's not really the point of WikiIndex. It's not our job to make up people's minds for them. Sounds like that's Conservapedia's job. ;-) But seriously, it seems to me that the consensus here on this talk page had been established and it did not include your interpretation of their policies. I'd like to hear from other people, though. --MarvelZuvembie 01:13, 29 November 2008 (EST)
 * I haven’t had unexpected blocks on Conservapedia. I knew what Conservapedia is like from RationalWiki before I started editing Conservapedia.  I have had unexpected blocks on other Wikis with different usernames.   I was editing English Wiktionary a bit carelessly and expected warnings before any block.  I think users should know that they can get blocked easily on Conservapedia. Proxima Centauri 02:41, 29 November 2008 (EST)
 * As stated above it has certainly been my experience that the section included by Gulik accurately reflects the site's policies (both stated and unstated). However, I would prefer the version that I reinstated (which I think was more measured).
 * I don't see why the section should not be included so long as it is accurate. Otherwise persons considering editing Conservapedia are very likely to receive a rude shock when they are blocked unexpectedly.  It is a way for WikiIndex to assist its users.  --Horace 21:10, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Most countries don't follow caveat emptor. Even the United States has consumer protection legislation. I think we are helping potential users by warning them about Conservapedia's blocking policy. The oponents of Conservapedia have compromised a great deal. I think this should stay. Proxima Centauri 02:20, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 * As long as it's done politely, I think it's appropriate. The long list of abuses (One editor did this; "nonsense" seems to mean anything factual) was fairly ridiculous.  But helpful advice seems to be a good thing, and fairly "WikiWay" in that it is feedback and guidelines to help the community.  Fishal 12:17, 30 November 2008 (EST)
 * But is this really Conservapedia's blocking policy? I see one person's opinion of what it is. I haven't looked at the rewrite yet, though. I still think we shouldn't be evaluating the worth of the content or the experience of the wikis we list here. --MarvelZuvembie 17:53, 1 December 2008 (EST)
 * How can I put this politely? Conservapedia has a rather noticeable disconnect between its STATED policies for sysops and the way those sysops actually ACT. --Gulik 15:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)
 * That was polite. :-) --MarvelZuvembie 15:54, 4 December 2008 (EST)

WtF?
This article wasn't even controversial. Phantom Hoover 06:09, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I was surprised also. Dilley said he was planning on doing it, but I thought he had changed his mind or something. Lumenos 12:39, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

==Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 Sysops & 3 people involved in the conflict==
 * What bloody conflict?! The only recent edit was Rpeh updating the stats! Ugh... UPDATE people SET sanity="insane" WHERE name="MarkDilley"; Phantom Hoover 10:08, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
 * I've already made that point but fingers seem to be in ears and the strains of "La la la! Can't hear you!" echo over the land. rpeh 10:18, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Very well then. Perhaps people have left this place because it was so boring before this event, and that is why you were unaware of any conflict. Would you gentlemen make controversy out of a harmless proposal to have pages devoted to criticism (or debate) for wikis such as these? Lumenos 16:30, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
 * OMG it's Ken. rpeh 16:39, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, now I implore of you; was that really worthy of announcing over the PA system of the sacred "Recent Changes"? Lumenos 19:17, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Now what?
Are we supposed to edit this or just list suggestions? In any case, I think the "Suggested guidelines for prospective editors" section should be removed. Wikiindex shouldn't encourage sockpuppeting and should remain neutral Nx 07:29, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
 * Editing above the TOC. I'll second that proposal! Lumenos 16:30, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

Move to article page - vote
As the statement at the top says: Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 Sysops and 3 people involved I propose that we do just that.--Bob M 08:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)

Vote for re-insertion
--Bob M 08:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)