No edit summary
(→‎See also: more-specific category)
 
(210 intermediate revisions by 56 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Wiki  
{{Wiki
| wiki_logo              = http://wikiindex.org/images/f/f7/Conservlogo.png
|logo            = http://conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png
| wiki_URL              = http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
|URL              = http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page
| wiki_recentchanges_URL = http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Recentchanges
|recentchanges URL= http://conservapedia.com/Special:RecentChanges
| wiki_wikinode_URL      = http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:WikiNode
|wikinode URL    = http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:WikiNode
| wiki_status            = Vibrant
|about URL        = http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About
| wiki_language          = English
|mobile URL      = No <!--http://m.YourWikiURL.org - If none, use 'No'-->
| wiki_editmode          = LoginToEdit
|status          = Active
| wiki_engine            = MediaWiki
|language        = English
| wiki_maintopic        = Encyclopedia
|editmode        = LoginToEdit
|engine          = MediaWiki
|license          = No license
|maintopic        = Encyclopedia
|backupurl        = <!--backup file URL, found at '/Special:Statistics' on Wikia & other MediaWiki sites-->
|backupdate      = 2013-MM-DD <!--ISO date of backup URL, if unknown, type 'unknown date'-->
}}
}}
== Description ==
{{Size
|pages= 46300  <!--type the plain number of pages - NO thousands separators-->
|statistics URL= http://conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics
|wikiFactor= 154 <!--preferred; if unknown leave void; see: Category:wikiFactor for help-->
|wikiFactor URL= http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:PopularPages&limit=150
}}<small>(As of: 20 September 2018)</small><!--manually add/amend date when stats are verified and/or updated-->


{{Size
<b>Conservapedia</b> is an {{tag|encyclopedia}} that is politically conservative, promotes young-Earth-creationism and conservative {{tag|Christianity}}, and is {{tag|United States of America|USA}}-centric. Conservapedia is in general hostile to liberals, homosexuals, and people who support or teach the theory of evolution or special or general relativity. Conservapedia also removes ideologically neutral content that provides information that could be used in ways that are deemed contrary to christian ethics.[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=Suicide+methods]
| wiki_statistics_URL = http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics?action=raw
 
| wiki_pages = 27225
The site was started in November of {{tag|Founded in 2006|2006}} by [[wp:Andrew Schlafly|Andrew Schlafly]] (presently the site's only active [[bureaucrat]]) and a group of home-schooled people, to provide an alternative to the perceived anti-christian, pro-evolution, anti-american, and anti-conservative bias of [[English Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]. The stated purpose of the site is to provide a family-friendly resource for home-schooled children from fundamentalist christian homes. Conservapedia also promotes judeo-christian doctrines regarding some sexual topics, including [[cp:homosexuality|homosexuality]].
}}
 
==Technical shortcomings==
Conservapedia cannot be editted during certain hours of the night, U.S. time, except by users with special "night editting" rights, to prevent [[vandal]]s from striking when most if not all of the [[sysop|administrators]] are asleep. This is rather inconvenient, since an edittor may begin editting an article but not be able to save his edit if the deadline passes while he is working on his revision. He cannot even store it on-wiki for saving later, since Conservapedia doesn't have [[mw:Extension:Checkpoint]] installed; the only option is to hit the browser's Back button and copy and paste the the revision text into some other pastebin, for saving to Conservapedia later. The site does not even state why the edit is disallowed, or when or if the restriction will end, but merely says "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit", leaving the user to possibly think that his editting rights have been revoked, or that editting Conservapedia is [[:Category:ByInvitation|by invitation only]].


An encyclopedia with a politically christian conservative viewpoint, friendly to creationism and Christianity, while rejecting what they perceive as socialliberal, homosexual and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution darwinist] agendas. The site was started in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly and a group of homeschooled children to provide an alternative to the perceived anti-Christian, darwinist, anti-American and anti-conservative bias of Wikipedia. The main purpose of the site is to provide a family-friendly resource for homeschooled children from fundamentalist Christian homes. However, some more adult topics such as homosexuality are also treated in depth, to explain all the myriad ways in which they are considered abhorrent.
Conservapedia also has no email notification user preferences options available, which significantly limits potential for maintaining user engagement.[https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45022] It is no wonder, then, that the site has fewer than 200 users (fewer than 80 of which have the coveted "edit" right)[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=80&group=edit] who have editted the site in the last 91 days.


As of 31 July 2008, Conservapedia has 22,091 registered users, of which 30 (or 0.14%) have Administrators rights. Of these registered users 11,086 were blocked (8691 for an infinite period).  Roughly half the users are currently blocked and over a third are permanently blocked. It is unclear what proportion of unblocked registered users regularly use the site. Anyways, a great portion of the blocked users are liberal minded people that entered the wiki with the only purpose of wreaking havoc or pushing their points. See [[RationalWiki]]
Conservapedia is frequently offline (sometimes for days at a time), and favors a very liberal deletion policy. At the start of November 2010, account-creation was turned-off, and prospective users must now email the site-owner to have an account created. This followed several months during which account-creation was disabled most of the time, and most new users were being blocked on sight. Account-creation is still occasionally enabled, although most accounts created in this manner are immediately blocked.


==Criticisms==
In December of 2010, Conservapedia started to block certain ranges of [[IP editors|IP addresses]] from even viewing the site. Many IP ranges in the [[:Category:United Kingdom|UK]], [[:Category:France|France]], [[:Category:Germany|Germany]], and other [[:Category:Europe|European]] countries now receive a 403 error when trying to load any page.
'''NOTE: THE FOLLOWING SECTION COULD NOT NOT NEUTRAL. NOTE THAT NO OTHER WIKIINDEX ARTICLE HAS A CRITICISM SECTION'''


Conservapedia is widely criticised. Liberals dislike intensely the blatant Conservative bias and outright slander against all Liberals and Moderate Conservatives in Conservapedia.  Other Conservatives fear that Conservapedia is giving their cause a bad name. For a more detailed discussion see [[The Conservapedia RationalWiki war]].
[[New Conservapedia]] has been set up to parody Conservapedia.


===A few examples===
==Statistics==


*The sysops and admins arbitarily deciding whether or not to enforce the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments Conservapedia Commandments] (see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=His_Dark_Materials_(novel)&curid=51358&diff=493793&oldid=493777 this] and Commandment number 5, together with the fact 'Learn Together' is a sysop for one example). 
As of 26 July 2013, Conservapedia had 55,000 registered user accounts, most of which are blocked, with 31 administrators. 348 users had made an edit in the preceding 91 days.
**Administrators decide arbitrarily what is a blockable offense. Users get blocked without having done anything they knew is wrong. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&oldid=556123#Block_of_LowKey]
*Removing cited facts and calling it 'liberal bias' simply because these facts do not conform to the preconceived notions of the leaders of the site.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abstinence&diff=next&oldid=207273].
*The management driving away experts from the site by, for example, demanding that they email a sysop proof of their qualifications before they continue to post on the site, after that sysop reverted edits on mathematics because they didn't understand them.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathoreilly&diff=485894&oldid=485890]
*"Belabouring a point" is a blockable offense. It is unclear what this means but it is likely to discourage experts who can discuss a point in detail. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&oldid=554521#Block_of_User:Toffeeman]
*The selective enforcement of Conservapedia's "[http://www.conservapedia.com/90/10 90/10 Rule]", which, despite being "a guideline", is a popular way for the sysops to squelch debate on talk pages via blocking and threats of same.  Users are not always warned in advance that 90% of their edits must be in articles.  Users who did not know that they were breaking any rule can be arbitrarily blocked
*On Conservapedia, 'vandalism' seems to include 'adding verified, cited facts that disagree with Fundamentalist dogma' makes 'vandalism' much easier than it should be. Many novice editors 'vandalize' the site without even realizing it, until they're blocked for it.
*Administrators decide arbitrarily what is a blockable offense. Users get blocked without having done anything they knew is wrong. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&oldid=556123#Block_of_LowKey]>
*Some pages, such as "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&action=history Theory of Evolution]" and "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality&action=history Homosexuality]" being permanently locked and monopolized by one obsessed sysop.
*Amusingly, despite the fact that many Conservapedia sysops read it regularly, and even refer to it obliquely on talk pages and in comments, mentioning [[RationalWiki]] by name is taboo on Conservapedia.  Doing so directly gets mere mortal posters banned.
*Near-total lack of oversight or any sort of appeals process for users who think a sysop is abusing their authority.  Many sysops don't even have email enabled, making it impossible for someone they ban to even find out why.
*Extremely poor scholarship.  Many 'articles' are [http://www.conservapedia.com/Coral_snake one or two short paragraphs ]at most, except those relating to how awful [http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal liberals], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality homosexuals], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism atheists],  or [http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution evolutionists] are, which can run for many hundreds of lines.
*Totally unrealistic criticism of Barack Obama who has the overwhelming support of the American voters.  Even other Conservatives feel things can go too far. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=75325&diff=556141&oldid=556007]  The user who complained has been blocked for it. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Vmember][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=next&oldid=556141] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Vmember&curid=78273&diff=556140&oldid=555529] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Vmember] There is no free speech on Conservapedia.
*Some confusion between "Encyclopedia" and "Blog", as the sysops make many long, hilariously opinionated articles on various Conservative talking-points, such as [http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_friendship how Liberals are incapable of real friendship].  This is an old version of the page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberals_and_friendship&oldid=489782 Liberals and friendship] which may be changed. Note the writers claim that the liberals, Speaker Tip O'Neil and Senator Ted Kennedy were friends with Ronald Regan as were other liberals.  This contradicts the main contention of the article. Liberals do not invariably refuse to be friends with conservatives. The more sensible conservapedians recognise this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALiberals_and_friendship&diff=556328&oldid=465412]
*At least one sysop keeps deleting perfectly factual mathematics articles because he doesn't understand the concepts involved. 
**The site's founder, Andrew Schlafly, apparently believes that "Imaginary Numbers" are part of a Liberal Plot.


==The RationalWiki / Conservapedia War==
==Suggested guidelines for prospective edittors==
Some WikiIndex edittors have had negative experiences with this wiki, and offer the following precautions in order to prevent having your account blocked:
*As it says on Conservapedia's user-creation page, usernames that are based upon your real name or initials are preferred, but are not required. While some users with names like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Lainy74 Lainy74] are blocked and told to create a new name, other users with names like [[cp:User:TK|"TK"]] and [[cp:User:Foxtrot|"Foxtrot"]], (both users who later gained blocking rights) were not.
*Conservapedia's [[cp:Conservapedia:90/10 rule|"90/10 rule"]] states that "unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account". New users are often surprised to find out that these numbers are not strictly followed, and can sometimes be blocked before making 10 total edits, especially if their edits are argumentative or questioning of the wiki. It is best to first establish yourself by making constructive edits to articles before trying to delve into the more controversial subjects.
*Be wary of disagreeing with a [[sysop]]. They may block you for disagreeing, though this may be unlikely if you are following all the other rules (including 90/10). Reverting any edits by a sysop will likely result in a ban.
*Be wary of an abundant use of <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags on articles, especially if you could add the citations yourself. This practice is often viewed as "ideologically-motivated tagging", and is frowned upon on Conservapedia.
*Conservapedia is a conservative, creationist encyclopedia. As such, it is best not to post anything that might be construed as "liberally biased" or "pro-evolution".  Even if you notice that the Conservapedia arguments against evolution are flawed, saying so can lead to them blocking you. The drop-menu for admins with blocking power includes "Liberal vandalism, Liberal name calling, Liberal parodist" [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown&direction=next&oldid=616544]
*Do not write rude or offensive material about another user, especially don't disparage a sysop. Do not imitate users in high standing who [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=78585&diff=592439&oldid=592419 can be very critical]. Ordinary users do not have the same freedom.
*If you get blocked for any of these reasons and you think that the block was unfair, <b>do not</b> create a new account. Instead, email the administrator or user who blocked you, and appeal for a second chance. Most users are granted leniency and are allowed to edit again. This applies especially to edittors who did not know that they broke a rule, since many edittors get blocked without realizing they broke a rule.
**If the sysop who blocked you does not have email enabled, you can appeal to another sysop.  This is against their [[cp:Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse#TK|new policy]], but try it anyway.
*Avoid posting using the same username as you use on any site that is critical of Conservapedia, and <b>especially</b> [[RationalWiki]]. That can be [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:StevenB&action=history a banning offense], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:HelpJazz HelpJazz] was blocked for this though Conservapedia claims [[cp:Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia|not to do that (#15)]].
*If Aschafly accuses you of being a Liberal, don't bother denying it, as that's just [[cp:Liberal denial|Liberal Denial]], [[cp:Liberal deceit|Liberal Deceit]], a [[cp:Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehood]], [[cp:Liberal hypocrisy|Liberal Hypocrisy]], and [[cp:Liberal obfuscation|Liberal Obfuscation]].  All you can do at that point is apologize, and Andy may condescend to allow you to stay, as long as you never post anything else he disagrees with.


There is an enormous project at [[RationalWiki]] to discredit, mock, and ridicule Conservapedia.  They gleefully point out, on the [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F "WIGO"] page, instances of foolish behavior such as outlined above.  This ridicule is perhaps the most popular part of RationalWiki.
==See also==
*[[A Storehouse of Knowledge]]: a wiki that was created by a former Conservapedia edittor (Phillip J Rayment) who was dissatisfied with Conservapedia
*[[RationalWiki]]: a wiki that was originally founded to criticize and make fun of Conservapedia, but which now claims to criticize pseudoscience in general
*[[Liberapedia]]: a parody wiki of Conservapedia that has a liberal bias
*[[New Conservapedia]]: another parody that claims that Conservapedia has a liberal bias
*[[Metapedia]]: an anti-jewish encyclopedia
*[[Ameriwiki]]: a conservative encyclopedia


See [[The Conservapedia RationalWiki war]]


[[Category:Political]]
[[Category:Religio-political wikis]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:FoundedIn2006]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Latest revision as of 11:06, 8 June 2025

Wiki size: 46,300 article pages see stats
wikiFactor: 154 info / verify

(As of: 20 September 2018)

Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that is politically conservative, promotes young-Earth-creationism and conservative Christianity, and is USA-centric. Conservapedia is in general hostile to liberals, homosexuals, and people who support or teach the theory of evolution or special or general relativity. Conservapedia also removes ideologically neutral content that provides information that could be used in ways that are deemed contrary to christian ethics.[1]

The site was started in November of 2006 by Andrew Schlafly (presently the site's only active bureaucrat) and a group of home-schooled people, to provide an alternative to the perceived anti-christian, pro-evolution, anti-american, and anti-conservative bias of Wikipedia. The stated purpose of the site is to provide a family-friendly resource for home-schooled children from fundamentalist christian homes. Conservapedia also promotes judeo-christian doctrines regarding some sexual topics, including homosexuality.

Technical shortcomingsEdit

Conservapedia cannot be editted during certain hours of the night, U.S. time, except by users with special "night editting" rights, to prevent vandals from striking when most if not all of the administrators are asleep. This is rather inconvenient, since an edittor may begin editting an article but not be able to save his edit if the deadline passes while he is working on his revision. He cannot even store it on-wiki for saving later, since Conservapedia doesn't have mw:Extension:Checkpoint installed; the only option is to hit the browser's Back button and copy and paste the the revision text into some other pastebin, for saving to Conservapedia later. The site does not even state why the edit is disallowed, or when or if the restriction will end, but merely says "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, edit", leaving the user to possibly think that his editting rights have been revoked, or that editting Conservapedia is by invitation only.

Conservapedia also has no email notification user preferences options available, which significantly limits potential for maintaining user engagement.[2] It is no wonder, then, that the site has fewer than 200 users (fewer than 80 of which have the coveted "edit" right)[3] who have editted the site in the last 91 days.

Conservapedia is frequently offline (sometimes for days at a time), and favors a very liberal deletion policy. At the start of November 2010, account-creation was turned-off, and prospective users must now email the site-owner to have an account created. This followed several months during which account-creation was disabled most of the time, and most new users were being blocked on sight. Account-creation is still occasionally enabled, although most accounts created in this manner are immediately blocked.

In December of 2010, Conservapedia started to block certain ranges of IP addresses from even viewing the site. Many IP ranges in the UK, France, Germany, and other European countries now receive a 403 error when trying to load any page.

New Conservapedia has been set up to parody Conservapedia.

StatisticsEdit

As of 26 July 2013, Conservapedia had 55,000 registered user accounts, most of which are blocked, with 31 administrators. 348 users had made an edit in the preceding 91 days.

Suggested guidelines for prospective edittorsEdit

Some WikiIndex edittors have had negative experiences with this wiki, and offer the following precautions in order to prevent having your account blocked:

  • As it says on Conservapedia's user-creation page, usernames that are based upon your real name or initials are preferred, but are not required. While some users with names like Lainy74 are blocked and told to create a new name, other users with names like "TK" and "Foxtrot", (both users who later gained blocking rights) were not.
  • Conservapedia's "90/10 rule" states that "unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account". New users are often surprised to find out that these numbers are not strictly followed, and can sometimes be blocked before making 10 total edits, especially if their edits are argumentative or questioning of the wiki. It is best to first establish yourself by making constructive edits to articles before trying to delve into the more controversial subjects.
  • Be wary of disagreeing with a sysop. They may block you for disagreeing, though this may be unlikely if you are following all the other rules (including 90/10). Reverting any edits by a sysop will likely result in a ban.
  • Be wary of an abundant use of {{fact}} tags on articles, especially if you could add the citations yourself. This practice is often viewed as "ideologically-motivated tagging", and is frowned upon on Conservapedia.
  • Conservapedia is a conservative, creationist encyclopedia. As such, it is best not to post anything that might be construed as "liberally biased" or "pro-evolution". Even if you notice that the Conservapedia arguments against evolution are flawed, saying so can lead to them blocking you. The drop-menu for admins with blocking power includes "Liberal vandalism, Liberal name calling, Liberal parodist" [4]
  • Do not write rude or offensive material about another user, especially don't disparage a sysop. Do not imitate users in high standing who can be very critical. Ordinary users do not have the same freedom.
  • If you get blocked for any of these reasons and you think that the block was unfair, do not create a new account. Instead, email the administrator or user who blocked you, and appeal for a second chance. Most users are granted leniency and are allowed to edit again. This applies especially to edittors who did not know that they broke a rule, since many edittors get blocked without realizing they broke a rule.
    • If the sysop who blocked you does not have email enabled, you can appeal to another sysop. This is against their new policy, but try it anyway.
  • Avoid posting using the same username as you use on any site that is critical of Conservapedia, and especially RationalWiki. That can be a banning offense, HelpJazz was blocked for this though Conservapedia claims not to do that (#15).
  • If Aschafly accuses you of being a Liberal, don't bother denying it, as that's just Liberal Denial, Liberal Deceit, a Liberal Falsehood, Liberal Hypocrisy, and Liberal Obfuscation. All you can do at that point is apologize, and Andy may condescend to allow you to stay, as long as you never post anything else he disagrees with.

See alsoEdit

  • A Storehouse of Knowledge: a wiki that was created by a former Conservapedia edittor (Phillip J Rayment) who was dissatisfied with Conservapedia
  • RationalWiki: a wiki that was originally founded to criticize and make fun of Conservapedia, but which now claims to criticize pseudoscience in general
  • Liberapedia: a parody wiki of Conservapedia that has a liberal bias
  • New Conservapedia: another parody that claims that Conservapedia has a liberal bias
  • Metapedia: an anti-jewish encyclopedia
  • Ameriwiki: a conservative encyclopedia