Conservapedia: Difference between revisions

From WikiIndex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "NoLicense" to "No license")
 
(194 intermediate revisions by 55 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Edit Warring}}
{{Wiki
 
|logo            = http://conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png
{{Wiki  
|URL              = http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page
| wiki_logo              = http://wikiindex.org/images/f/f7/Conservlogo.png
|recentchanges URL= http://conservapedia.com/Special:RecentChanges
| wiki_URL              = http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
|wikinode URL    = http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:WikiNode
| wiki_recentchanges_URL = http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Recentchanges
|about URL        = http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About
| wiki_wikinode_URL      = http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:WikiNode
|mobile URL      = No <!--http://m.YourWikiURL.org - If none, use 'No'-->
| wiki_status            = Vibrant
|status          = Active
| wiki_language          = English
|language        = English
| wiki_editmode          = LoginToEdit
|editmode        = LoginToEdit
| wiki_engine            = MediaWiki
|engine          = MediaWiki
| wiki_maintopic        = Encyclopedia
|license          = No license
}}
|maintopic        = Encyclopedia
== Description ==
|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'-->
{{Size
| wiki_statistics_URL = http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics?action=raw
| wiki_pages = 27225
}}
}}
{{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-->


An encyclopedia with a politically christian conservative viewpoint, friendly to creationism and Christianity, while rejecting what they perceive as social-liberal, 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''' is a right-wing {{tag|encyclopedia}} written with a {{tag|conservative}} viewpoint. More specifically, Conservapedia's articles are politically conservative, friendly to young Earth creationism and conservative {{tag|Christianity}}, and {{tag|United States of America|USA}}-centric. Conservapedia is in general {{tag|Wikis with a strong viewpoint|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 deemed contrary to Christian ethics.[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=Suicide+methods]


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 blockedIt is unclear what proportion of unblocked registered users regularly use the site. Anyways, a great portion of the blocked users are pranksters or liberal minded people that entered the wiki with the purpose of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_deceit Liberal Deceit] and/or pushing their Liberal points. See [[RationalWiki]]
The site was started in November {{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. However, a few more {{tag|Adult content|adult topics}} such as [[cp:Homosexuality|homosexuality]] are also treated in depth from their viewpoint.


==Criticisms==
==Technical shortcomings==
'''NOTE: THE FOLLOWING SECTION COULD NOT BE NEUTRAL, DUE TO THE FACT THIS SECTION WAS CREATED BY RATIONALWIKI STAFF. NOTE ALSO THAT NO OTHER WIKIINDEX ARTICLE HAS A CRITICISM SECTION'''  <br/>
Conservapedia cannot be edited during certain hours of the night, U.S. time, except by users with special "night editing" rights, to prevent [[vandal]]s from striking when most if not all of the [[Sysop|administrators]] are asleep. This is rather inconvenient since an editor may begin editing 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 editing rights have been revoked or that editing Conservapedia is [[:Category:ByInvitation|by invitation only]].
----


Note that no other Wiki ''needs'' one this badly. {{Fact}}
Conservapedia also has no email notification user preferences options available; this 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 whom have the coveted "edit" right)[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=80&group=edit] who have edited the site in the last 91 days.


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. What drives both insane is the fact that they can't FIX any it, due to Conservapedia's utterly dysfunctional management.  
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.


For a more detailed discussion see [[The Conservapedia RationalWiki war]].
In December 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.


===A few examples===
[[New Conservapedia]] has been set up to parody Conservapedia.


*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). 
==Statistics==
**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==
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.


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.
==Suggested guidelines for prospective editors==
Some WikiIndex editors 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, "User names based on 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 feel the Conservapedia arguments against evolution are flawed saying so can lead to a block. The drop menu for those 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 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 those who did not know they did anything wrong since many get blocked without realizing they did anything wrong.
**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 user name as you use on any site critical of Conservapedia, '''especially''' [[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.


See [[The Conservapedia RationalWiki war]]
==See also==
*[[A Storehouse of Knowledge]] was set up by former Conservapedia editors who were dissatisfied with Conservapedia.
*[[RationalWiki]], an '''entire wiki''' originally founded to criticize and make fun of Conservapedia, now criticizes pseudo-science in general.
*[[Liberapedia]], a parody wiki of Conservapedia that has a liberal bias
*[[New Conservapedia]] another parody that claims Conservapedia has a liberal bias
*[[Metapedia]], a fascist encyclopedia
*[[Ameriwiki]], a conservative encyclopedia


[[Category:Political]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:FoundedIn2006]]
[[Category:Wikis with a strong viewpoint]]<!--this wiki is not about internet censorship and therefor technically does not belong in the category-->
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Latest revision as of 16:20, 4 December 2022

http://conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png Conservapedia
Recent changes
WikiNode
About
[No Mobile URL]
Founded by:
Status: Active
Language: English
Edit mode: LoginToEdit
Wiki engine: MediaWiki
Wiki license: No license
Main topic: Encyclopedia
Wiki size: 46,300 article pages see stats
wikiFactor: 154 info / verify

(As of: 20 September 2018)

Conservapedia is a right-wing encyclopedia written with a conservative viewpoint. More specifically, Conservapedia's articles are politically conservative, friendly to young Earth creationism and conservative Christianity, and 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 deemed contrary to Christian ethics.[1]

The site was started in November 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. However, a few more adult topics such as homosexuality are also treated in depth from their viewpoint.

Technical shortcomings[edit]

Conservapedia cannot be edited during certain hours of the night, U.S. time, except by users with special "night editing" rights, to prevent vandals from striking when most if not all of the administrators are asleep. This is rather inconvenient since an editor may begin editing 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 editing rights have been revoked or that editing Conservapedia is by invitation only.

Conservapedia also has no email notification user preferences options available; this 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 whom have the coveted "edit" right)[3] who have edited 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 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.

Statistics[edit]

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 editors[edit]

Some WikiIndex editors 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, "User names based on 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 feel the Conservapedia arguments against evolution are flawed saying so can lead to a block. The drop menu for those 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 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 those who did not know they did anything wrong since many get blocked without realizing they did anything wrong.
    • 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 user name as you use on any site critical of Conservapedia, 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 also[edit]

  • A Storehouse of Knowledge was set up by former Conservapedia editors who were dissatisfied with Conservapedia.
  • RationalWiki, an entire wiki originally founded to criticize and make fun of Conservapedia, now criticizes pseudo-science in general.
  • Liberapedia, a parody wiki of Conservapedia that has a liberal bias
  • New Conservapedia another parody that claims Conservapedia has a liberal bias
  • Metapedia, a fascist encyclopedia
  • Ameriwiki, a conservative encyclopedia