Talk:Conservapedia

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)

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)