Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war

I've put the deleted materal into a separate article linked to Conservapedia and RationalWiki. I hope that's an acceptable compromise. Proxima Centauri 12:36, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I don't really see how it's a comprimise... there's still a page about why Conservapedia is bad. How is this different than before? JazzMan 13:37, 15 November 2008 (EST)

You're a Conservapedian. I'm as RationalWikian. Neither of us is neutral. Not everybody will click onto the link to this page. Therefore it's a compromise. Here administrators don't inforce their decisions as happens at Conservapedia. Neutral admins will decide this. Proxima Centauri 14:38, 15 November 2008 (EST)

I'm also a sysop on RationalWiki. What's your point?

This is linked to on Conservapedia, so even though not everyone will read it, it's readily available to anyone who wants to look up Conservative encyclopedias.

What is this wiki about? Is it about directing people towards wikis, or providing (one sided) criticisms of wikis? I checked out a couple popular wikis as a way to compare and see what a "good" wikiindex article would be. English Wikipedia, the wiki, is described as "The English language Wikipedia, free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, neutral point of view, NPOV". Uncyclopedia has no criticism, Encyclopædia Dramatica has no criticism. RationalWiki has a "criticism" section, but it's used to criticise Conservapedia. The only criticism section I can find is in AboutUs, but it is stated in plain, non-inflamatory language, and AboutUs was given a chance to refute the criticism section. My "bias" doesn't change these facts, does it? JazzMan 18:48, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Jazz, if you want to add a section explaining why Andrew Schlafly is like Jesus with a PhD, by all means don't let ME stop you. The simple fact that CP lies all the time about topics ranging from fossil formation to Barack Obama's religious beliefs is kind of important, and anyone gullible enough to think about using it as a research source on any topic other than the psychopathology of authoritarian organizations probably needs to be warned that Conservapedia is to education what NAMBLA is to the Boy Scouts. --Gulik 15:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Did I say anywhere that I approve of Schlafly? No. Have you given any evidence to show that a criticism fits within the guidelines of this wiki? No. Would I get reverted if I took out the snark, unproven claims and outright falshoods in this article? Probably. JazzMan 15:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Refresh my memory. Which of us has been trying to become a sysop at CP, again?

As for outright falsehoods, name 'em and remove 'em. The truth about CP is vastly more defamatory than anything I could make up. --Gulik 18:57, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Well, I'm not trying to be, nor have I ever tried to be, a sysop on CP, so I guess if it's one of us, it would have to be you. In fact, I have recently blocked myself from editing at Conservapedia for a short while because of constant attacks and bullying -- from CP users. I'm clearly not on CP's side here, and you clearly are on the side against CP.

I will start removing all the falsehoods as soon as a neutral admin (are there any? None seem to ever come around) says that this article stays. Otherwise I'd just be wasting my time. JazzMan 19:23, 20 November 2008 (EST)

So you blocked yourself. So you are a sysop. OK you got that without trying. Congratulations. Proxima Centauri 22:51, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Wait, your're telling me that you are writing the article about Conservapedia, but you don't even know enough about Conservapedia to know that block rights are given out separately from sysop? How is anybody supposed to believe that anything you write is true, when the only edits you make on Conservapedia are vandalism, and you clearly know about no other aspects of the wiki?? JazzMan 02:12, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I've made constructive edits to Conservapedia. Those homeschooled kids will be at a disadvantage all their lives because they haven't got a proper education. I don't mind giving them a bit of advice about staying healthy etc. I make a few constructive edits in areas that aren't controversial. I won't say more or you'll be able to trace my sockpuppets. Proxima Centauri 03:17, 21 November 2008 (EST)

Sooooo you won't admit what your username on CP is, because you are knowingly breaking the rules against sockpuppets, you admit your vandalism (and flaunt it), and *I'm* the one who's too biased to edit? How did you become an admin here anyway? (And why haven't you called for the neutral admin you promised almost a week ago?) JazzMan 17:11, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I protect good wikis from vandals. Conervapedia is mostly worthless in my opinion. Articles with basic information can help those unfortunate home schooled kids be a bit less ignorant. I edit those articles constructively and don't vandalize those articles. I think I got to be an admin here because I spent hours and hours reverting vandalism and protecting wikis from vandals on many different wikis. Notably on Palaeos Org I put a lot of work into preventing page-move vandalism.I’ve alerted the other administrators to the problem. Proxima Centauri 03:53, 22 November 2008 (EST)

What's this article for? I thought that this was supposed to be an online wiki phonebook, not a place for wikis to criticize each other. This will grow out of control. Someone might try to make a Wookieepedia vs. Star Wars Fanon article, an Uncyclopedia vs. Illogicopedia article, or even an Uncyclopedia/ Illogicopedia vs. Wikia article. --Michaeldsuarez 00:03, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Uncyclopedia has plenty of criticism of the blocking policy. Encyclopedia Dramatica is impossible to edit because any attempt to edit triggers a spam filter. Impartial administrators need to decide what this wiki is for. Proxima Centauri 02:32, 16 November 2008 (EST)

It's hardly a criticism. On a humorwiki you get blocked humorously and without much sense. Ooooooh that's a harsh criticism indeed. And spam filter? If that's the only reason why there's no criticism, then how did the article get there in the first place? Clearly if someone wanted to write a criticism they could get around the spam filter in the same way. JazzMan 14:28, 16 November 2008 (EST)