1,853
edits
Conservapedia: Difference between revisions
→Criticisms
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
*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]. | *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 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] | ||
*"Belabouring a point" is a blockable offence. It ids unclear what this means but it is likely to discourage experts who can discuss a point in detail. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&oldid=554521] | |||
*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. | * 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. | ||