8
edits
RationalWiki (en): Difference between revisions
→Criticism
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
==Criticism== | ==Criticism== | ||
Some members have admitted to vandalising [[Conservapedia]] in the past. Criticism of Conservapedia on RationalWiki and elsewhere is extreme. Due to the authoritarian and incompetent management on Conservapedia, even people who generally edit wikis responsibly may be tempted to vandalize Conservapedia. The fact that 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. | Some members have admitted to vandalising [[Conservapedia]] in the past. Criticism of Conservapedia on RationalWiki and elsewhere is extreme. Due to the authoritarian and incompetent management on Conservapedia, even people who generally edit wikis responsibly may be tempted to vandalize Conservapedia. The fact that 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> | <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. Censoring material including true information that fundamentalist Christians or the Schlafly family don’t like is very much Consevapedia’s style. The censor it on their own website by blocking users. Administrators on other wikis may need to take care that people connected with Conservapedia don’t manipulate them into blocking users for reasons that suit Conservapedia. [[User:Barbara Shack|Barbara Shack]] </blockquote> | ||
As most of the founding members of RationalWiki were blocked from Conservapedia for trying to moderate anti-scientific content and include more liberal points of view, they have continued to undermine Conservapedia's lunacy in the following manners: | As most of the founding members of RationalWiki were blocked from Conservapedia for trying to moderate anti-scientific content and include more liberal points of view, they have continued to undermine Conservapedia's lunacy in the following manners: | ||