29
edits
Conservapedia: Difference between revisions
(Revert work of anonymous vandal.)
No edit summary |
((Revert work of anonymous vandal.)) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
}} | }} | ||
An encyclopedia with a politically conservative viewpoint, friendly to creationism and Christianity, and massively hostile to Liberals, homosexuals, and people who believe in the theory of evolution. 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, 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. | |||
An encyclopedia with a politically conservative viewpoint | |||
As of 31 July 2008, Conservapedia has 22,091 registered users, of which 30 (or 0.14%) have Administrators rights. | 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. | ||
== | ==Criticisms== | ||
[[Category:Political]][[Category:Christianity]] | *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). | ||
*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] | |||
*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. | |||
*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. | |||
*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]. | |||
==The RationalWiki / Conservapedia War== | |||
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. | |||
Conservapedia forbids any mention anywhere of the phrase "RationalWiki", and has a so-called "spam filter" that automatically blocks any attempt to enter the phrase in that form. People who evade that by entering things like "<nowiki>Rational<!-- -->Wiki</nowiki>" are immediately blocked. In recent months (2008) the sysops have allowed oblique references to "that other place" or "RW", but all such references must be vitriolic. Any expression of sympathy with, or tolerance of, "that other place" leads to an immediate ban. | |||
RationalWiki appears to have been started by disaffected refugees from Conservapedia, and explicit vandalism of Conservapedia by RationalWiki people was probably a common activity at that time. Conservapedia accuses RationalWiki of being responsible for most of their vandalism, though the heavy ongoing influx of new users suggests that that is not the case. In any case, the anonymity of the internet makes it impossible to tell. | |||
Conservapedia usually bans anyone known to have an account at RationalWiki, though there seem to be occasional exceptions for long-standing Conservapedia editors. One user, Ames Grauert, was permitted to come back after a long ban, and took Andrew Schlafly up on the latter's challenge to have a debate with any liberal. However, the planning discussion did not go well ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=496823#Debate.3F], | |||
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=496823#More_on_Debates], | |||
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=496823#Debates.2C_Round_3]) | |||
as the sysops repeatedly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:DParker blocked] Ames during discussions. As of August 2008, the debate does not appear destined to occur. | |||
A few Conservapedia sysops have accounts at RationalWiki, where they are treated with great hostility but not blocked. | |||
==Difficulties== | |||
Because of its extreme views on evolution, politics, society, history, education, religion, sexuality, and science in general, and its very narrow orthodoxy on these subjects, Conservapedia is the subject of massive ridicule throughout the internet. This, coupled with its open wiki organization, creates serious difficulties for their administrators. There is an enormous traffic in editors arguing with sysops and changing articles to be less extreme. This leads to massive censorship, reversion (even comments on talk pages are often censored and reverted) and account blocking. | |||
New accounts are created as frequently as they are permanently blocked. One can't know for sure, but it is plausible to assume that many new account creations are simply responses to blocking. Such an account is generally considered a "sockpuppet", and is a minor irritation on sites such as Wikipedia. On Conservapedia they are a major problem for the administrators. They are strictly forbidden, of course, but, because of the wide availability of internet proxies, they can't be stopped. The Conservapedia administrators frequently block IP addresses, sometimes in huge (> 100,000) blocks, in a futile attempt to stop edits that are hostile to their philosophy. | |||
Another aspect of this difficulty that editing permission, except for "trusted" users, is turned off at night, so that it is only allowed when the site is being continuously monitored by an administrator ready to take immediate action. | |||
Conservapedia also has a very high traffic in arguments and conflict on talk pages, relative to edits to article pages. A typical listing of 500 "recent changes", taken at 18:31 EDT, 16 July 2008, and covering about two days, shows the following: | |||
*Nontrivial article/essay edits: 140 (28%) | |||
*Trivial article/essay edits: 120 (24%) | |||
::(<= 20 characters, or fussing with templates, redirects, wikilinks, "terms" items, protection changes) | |||
*Edit warring (reversion) on article/essay pages: 22 (4%) | |||
*Edits to essay/article talk pages: 59 (12%) | |||
*Edits to user pages: 15 (3%) | |||
*Edits to user talk pages: 84 (17%) | |||
*User creation events: 34 (7%) | |||
*User blocks, less than 5 years: 2 (0%) | |||
*User blocks, 5 years or more: 24 (5%) | |||
==Evaluation== | |||
The great strength of the Wiki format is allowing anyone to edit. This causes major problems for the management of Conservapedia, who are forced to spend much of their time scrutinizing every edit for deviation from their ideology. The site is sometimes characterized as "Andy's blog" because of his pervasive control over its content. A major consequence of making it a wiki instead of the usual (closed) blog is that it has the problems noted above. | |||
[[Category:Political]] | |||
[[Category:Christianity]] | |||
[[Category:FoundedIn2006]] | [[Category:FoundedIn2006]] | ||
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] | |||