1,853
edits
Conservapedia: Difference between revisions
→Criticisms
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
*"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#Block_of_User:Toffeeman] | *"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#Block_of_User:Toffeeman] | ||
*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. | ||
*Administrators decide arbitrarily what is a blockable offence. Users get blocked without having done anything they knew is wrong. | |||
<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 people rather than people I know. 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. They 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> | <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 people rather than people I know. 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. They 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> | ||