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)

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