2,368
edits
Conservapedia: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Undid revision 78414 by 173.188.63.148 (talk); whitewash by anon (Hi TK!)) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
The site was started in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly and a group of homeschooled people to provide an alternative to the perceived anti-Christian, pro-Evolution, anti-American and anti-conservative bias of [[Wikipedia]]. The stated purpose of the site is to provide a family-friendly resource for homeschooled children from fundamentalist Christian homes. However, a few more adult topics such as [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality homosexuality] are also treated in depth from their viewpoint. | The site was started in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly and a group of homeschooled people to provide an alternative to the perceived anti-Christian, pro-Evolution, anti-American and anti-conservative bias of [[Wikipedia]]. The stated purpose of the site is to provide a family-friendly resource for homeschooled children from fundamentalist Christian homes. However, a few more adult topics such as [http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality homosexuality] are also treated in depth from their viewpoint. | ||
Conservapedia cannot be edited during nighttime, U.S. time, except by users with special "night editing" rights, to prevent vandals from striking when all | Conservapedia cannot be edited during nighttime, U.S. time, except by users with special "night editing" rights, to prevent vandals from striking when most of not all of the administrators are asleep. Conservapedia is frequently offline and favors a very liberal deletion policy. | ||
As of September 2010, account creation is disabled most of the time and most new users are being blocked on site | |||
[[A Storehouse of Knowledge]] was set up by former Conservapedia editors who were dissatisfied with Conservapedia. | [[A Storehouse of Knowledge]] was set up by former Conservapedia editors who were dissatisfied with Conservapedia. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
{{Size | {{Size | ||
| wiki_statistics_URL = http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics?action=raw | | wiki_statistics_URL = http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics?action=raw | ||
| wiki_pages = | | wiki_pages = 34185 | ||
| wikiFactor = | | wikiFactor = 96 | ||
| wikiFactor URL = http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:PopularPages | | wikiFactor URL = http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:PopularPages&limit=100&offset=50 | ||
}} | }} | ||
As of | As of 19 September 2010, Conservapedia had 37,913 registered user accounts, most of which are blocked. There are 39 active users and 34 Administrators. | ||
==Suggested guidelines for prospective editors== | ==Suggested guidelines for prospective editors== | ||
| Line 33: | Line 35: | ||
Some WikiIndex editors have had negative experiences with this wiki and offer the following precautions in order to prevent having your account blocked: | Some WikiIndex editors have had negative experiences with this wiki and offer the following precautions in order to prevent having your account blocked: | ||
* As it says on Conservapedia's user creation page, "User names based on your real name or initials are preferred" | * As it says on Conservapedia's user creation page, "User names based on your real name or initials are preferred" but are not required. While some users with names like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Lainy74 Lainy74] are blocked and told to create a new name, other users with names like [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:TK "TK"] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Foxtrot "Foxtrot"], (both users who later gained blocking rights) were not. | ||
* Conservapedia's [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:90/10_rule "90/10 rule"] states that "unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account". New users are often surprised to find out that these numbers are not strictly followed, and can sometimes be blocked before making 10 total edits, especially if their edits are argumentative or questioning of the wiki. It is best to first establish yourself by making constructive edits to articles before trying to delve into the more controversial subjects. | * Conservapedia's [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:90/10_rule "90/10 rule"] states that "unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account". New users are often surprised to find out that these numbers are not strictly followed, and can sometimes be blocked before making 10 total edits, especially if their edits are argumentative or questioning of the wiki. It is best to first establish yourself by making constructive edits to articles before trying to delve into the more controversial subjects. | ||
* Be wary of disagreeing with a sysop. They may block you for disagreeing, though this may be unlikely if you are following all the other rules (including 90/10). Reverting any edits by a sysop will likely result in a ban. | * Be wary of disagreeing with a sysop. They may block you for disagreeing, though this may be unlikely if you are following all the other rules (including 90/10). Reverting any edits by a sysop will likely result in a ban. | ||
| Line 41: | Line 43: | ||
* If you get blocked for any of these reasons and you think the block was unfair, '''do not''' create a new account. Instead, email the administrator or user who blocked you and appeal for a second chance. Most users are granted leniency and are allowed to edit again. This applies especially to those who did not know they did anything wrong since many get blocked without realizing they did anything wrong. | * If you get blocked for any of these reasons and you think the block was unfair, '''do not''' create a new account. Instead, email the administrator or user who blocked you and appeal for a second chance. Most users are granted leniency and are allowed to edit again. This applies especially to those who did not know they did anything wrong since many get blocked without realizing they did anything wrong. | ||
** If the sysop who blocked you does not have email enabled, you can appeal to another sysop. This is against their [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse#TK new policy], but the worst they can do is block you for all eternity. | ** If the sysop who blocked you does not have email enabled, you can appeal to another sysop. This is against their [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse#TK new policy], but the worst they can do is block you for all eternity. | ||
* Avoid posting using the same user name as you use on any site critical of Conservapedia, '''especially''' [[RationalWiki]]. That can be [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:StevenB&action=history a banning offense], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:HelpJazz HelpJazz] was blocked for this though TK who blocked him aspires to be a [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:TK&oldid=110566 bureaucrat at RationalWiki]. Conservapedia claims [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia they claim not to do that (#15)]. | * Avoid posting using the same user name as you use on any site critical of Conservapedia, '''especially''' [[RationalWiki]]. That can be [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:StevenB&action=history a banning offense], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:HelpJazz HelpJazz] was blocked for this though TK who blocked him aspires to be a [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:TK&oldid=110566 bureaucrat at RationalWiki]. Conservapedia claims [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia they claim not to do that (#15)]. | ||
* If Aschafly accuses you of being a Liberal, don't bother denying it, as that's just [http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_denial Liberal Denial], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_deceit Liberal Deceit], a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Liberal_Falsehoods Liberal Falsehood], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_hypocrisy Liberal Hypocrisy], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_obfuscation Liberal Obfuscation]. All you can do at that point is apologize, and Andy may condescend to allow you to stay, as long as you never post anything else he disagrees with. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[RationalWiki]], an '''entire wiki''' originally founded to criticize Conservapedia, now | *[[RationalWiki]], an '''entire wiki''' originally founded to criticize and make fun of Conservapedia, now criticizes pseudo-science in general. | ||
*[[Liberapedia]], the parody wiki of Conservapedia | *[[Liberapedia]], the parody wiki of Conservapedia | ||
[[Category:Political]][[Category:Christianity]][[Category:FoundedIn2006]][[Category:Wikis with a strong viewpoint]] | [[Category:Political]][[Category:Christianity]][[Category:FoundedIn2006]][[Category:Wikis with a strong viewpoint]] | ||
<!--this wiki is not about internet censorship and therefor technically does not belong in the category--> | |||