8
edits
Conservapedia: Difference between revisions
→Criticisms
(→Criticisms: Adding more criticism, as promised.) |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
*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 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. | *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. | |||
<blockquote>I was blocked for a month at [[Uncyclopedia]] for writing true information about Phyllis Schlafly. See [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User:Barbara_Shack my user page there] and [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barbara_Shack#Phyllis_Schlafly my talk page there]. I know Mordillo who blocked me now. I don’t believe he would have censored true material critical of the Schlafly family if he had known it was true or known that the Schlafly family are prominent. I suspect that people connected the Schlafly family were monitoring Uncyclopedia’s article on [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia Conservapedia]. When I wrote true information I suspect Mordillo was told and nobody bothered to mention that I was writing the truth. Certainly the block happened so fast I had no time to add verifiable links. It would have been a remarkable coincidence if any Uncyclopedia administrator just happened to be monitoring the article at that time. [[User:Barbara Shack|Barbara Shack]] </blockquote> | |||
*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. | *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. | *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. | *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. | *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. | ||