{{TOC right}}== Oops ==
I replaced the text accidentally. I intended to press the preview button and must have pressed save accidentally. Sorry. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 10:13, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
== Critical tone ==
I'm new to WikiIndex, but I can't imagine that its tone is supposed to be so openly critical. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 15:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
:fundamentalist Christian? site partly devoted to homes schooled children? Sorry, more bias. Nowhere on the site is it described as such. Created by home schooled individuals yes. Wiki for all, not fundamentalists.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:27, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
::How do you figure a wiki that says that Christian young-earth creationism is unquestionably the absolute truth, and censors and blocks anyone providing facts that dispute that is NOT a fundamentalist Christian site? [[User:92.22.183.214|92.22.183.214]] 20:24, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
:::On the Kangaroo article we list the evolution, dreamtime, and young earth creationism views, and give them equal validity, notice that wikipedia instead always give the evolution view and never any other views--[[User:Deborah|Deborah]] 07:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Deborah, if you seriously think Conservapedia comes across as in any way unbiased, you're only fooling yourself. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 14:24, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
== Separating RationalWiki criticism ==
Disclaimer: I follow both sites with great interest, and have edited on both sites.
I'd also like to expand the "evaluation" section (or put in a new one) into a "difficulties" section, pointing out that CP, because of its extreme stances on things, comes under continual attack that sometimes stresses the limits of what an open wiki can stand. Point out the enormous amount of effort the sysops put into banning people, reverting people, bullying people, and generally fending off the multitudinous attacks from the rest of the web.
And, somewhere in all this, point out how that has compromised the goal of providing an educational resource, as seen by the way even non-controversial topics can't make progress. --[[User:William Ackerman|William Ackerman]] 17:49, 7 August 2008 (EDT)
:Sounds fair. Though should "The War" go under CP or RW? Or does it need it's own article - "Wiki wars" or whatever? Such an article might also refer to Librapedia, RWW, Creation Wiki Evowiki and Atheism.wikia. Or would such an article run counter to the ethos of this site?--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::I lean towards putting it under CP. The war tends to be '''about''' CP but '''by''' RW. Most of what would go into the section would describe CP, so that's where it belongs. A mention and link in the RW article, of course. As far as a separate article, or even a category of such, I'm too new a user here to take that step. Is that something this site should be going into? Not for me to say. [[User:William Ackerman|William Ackerman]] 14:23, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
== Lengthy criticisms ==
I dislike CP as well, but Wikiindex seems to be, well, an index: a very short description of the wikis, some technical details, some links. CP is unique in that it has a ''whole entire wiki'' dedicated to criticizing it and drawing attention to its worst abuses and most comical moments. Isn't that sort of thing beyond the scope of this site? [[User:74.7.166.234|74.7.166.234]] 14:42, 13 November 2008 (EST)
: Looking at [[Special:Longpages]], it basically has the longest description of any wiki. ([[Uncyclopedia]] has more bytes, but has a 325 word description compared to Conservapedia's 1661 words; [[Transontologia]] is an unwikified cut-n-paste) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 15:21, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::Go figure, the criticism is back. Why don't we just make this page a link to RationalWiki? That's the only reason this article seems to exist. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 20:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Racist anti-white anti-christian people are managing Wikiindex now? Why the hell Conservapedia needs a criticims section no other wiki has one! [[User:Eros of Fire|Eros of Fire]] 14:07, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Racist anti-white anti-christian people are managing Wikiindex now? Why the hell Conservapedia needs a criticims section no other wiki has one![[User:Eros of Fire|Eros of Fire]] 14:07, 18 November 2008 (EST) Come on... it is just an index! If you want criticism, go to Wikipedia! That section must be moved. [[User:Eros of Fire|Eros of Fire]] 14:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Or deleted...[[User:Eros of Fire|Eros of Fire]] 14:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:A general shortlist of criticisms is appropriate, I think, since, well, it's hard to talk about something like CP (parts of which border on a hate site) without being critical, and a (brief) description of the shennanigans that go on there could be appropriate in a general description. What is not helpful in an index is a lengthy, mind-numbing, RationalWiki-style point-by-point trudge through all of CP's problems. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 15:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)
== Go ahead, keep deleting the "Criticism" section. == I'll put it back, and add more items each time. Eris knows I've got NO shortage of material. <br/>(Sorry, Proxima, I tried, but some bunch of numbers just _couldn't_ bear to see Andy's honor besmirched.)--[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 20:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:I am not pro Conservapedia. I just don't agree to criticism sections taking up entire articles. -Anon
::Are there any sysops around here who aren't part of CP or RW who could tell us if a criticism section fits the goals of this site? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:36, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: It is the only wiki with one!!![[User:Eros of Fire|Eros of Fire]] 07:06, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::So it is the only wiki in the whole wikiindex whose own editors are not the ones who edit its entry but its enemies... It is the only thing we get when liberal political correctness control all the media![[User:Eros of Fire|Eros of Fire]] 07:18, 19 November 2008 (EST).
:Check out the convo [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|here]]. I'm fine with taking out the links (if that is the final comprimise), but I don't agree to many of your other changes. For example, you added that users were blocked for adding "non-christian information"; not only is this not really true, but it's more of a criticism than a compliment, when is what I assume you were going for. Also, conservatives ''do'' criticize CP, so I don't know why you keep removing that. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 18:35, 23 November 2008 (EST)
== Wikiindex ==
I have been asked[http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavidCary&diff=59927&oldid=59646] how much criticism is appropriate in the this Conservapedia article.
May I remind everyone that you are now reading a page on the [[WikiIndex]]?I believe that everything is on-topic somewhere[http://www.communitywiki.org/en/OnAndOffTopic].However, that does not mean that everything is on-topic here at WikiIndex.
The WikiIndex page "The Conservapedia RationalWiki war" has been deleted because as far as I can tell
(b) that war is not a wiki, and therefore off-topic for WikiIndex.
Given that there is an entire wiki dedicated to criticizing Conservapedia, I fail to see why that criticism needs to be re-iterated here at WikiIndex.And so I fail to understand why this WikiIndex page needs a criticism section.
Nevertheless, mentioning closely-related wiki is helpful for our target audience, and so I find the bullet point
entirely appropriate in this article.
Is it obvious to everyone that I am strongly biased?--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 09:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)
More discussion at [[Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki#Conservapedia, RationalWiki etc]]. --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 09:42, 24 November 2008 (EST)
::::I think there should be a section warning potential users that they can get blocked for doing things that they don't know are wrong. I'm not sure what we can do as we agreed to accept independent arbitration. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 16:43, 26 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Good idea. I've started a "Editors' Guidelines" section, which I'm sure could be expanded upon. And I stand by my misstatements. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 16:25, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::::I disagree and have reverted accordingly. They seem to present your personal opinions and not the actual policy of the site. Although Wikiindex does not appear to have a neutrality policy akin to that of Wikipedia, I fail to see how such highly subjective "guidelines" fall into the charter of Wikiindex. We are not offering such "advice" for any other site listed here at Wikiindex and its inclusion is inflammatory. Surely editors can figure out from the current description whether Conservapedia is a wiki they would enjoy (or loathe) working on. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 17:27, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::===Sysops and blocks===By and large the section accurately reflected what happens on the site. The stated "policy" of the site is one thing, what actually happens there is another. I intend to replace the section (having removed what I regard as a couple of references that overstep the mark). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:09, 28 November 2008 (EST):It's still biased and unnecessary. It's not our job to "protect" people from overzealous sysops. Caveat emptor. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 19:53, 28 November 2008 (EST)::And I've reverted it right back. I've been watching CP for over a year now, and those ''are'' their policies. It ain't pretty. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 21:16, 28 November 2008 (EST):::I'm glad someone's watching them, but that's not really the point of WikiIndex. It's not our job to make up people's minds for them. Sounds like that's Conservapedia's job. ;-) But seriously, it seems to me that the consensus here on this talk page had been established and it did not include your ''interpretation'' of their policies. I'd like to hear from other people, though. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 01:13, 29 November 2008 (EST)::::I haven’t had unexpected blocks on Conservapedia. I knew what Conservapedia is like from RationalWiki before I started editing Conservapedia. I have had unexpected blocks on other Wikis with different usernames. I was editing [[English Wiktionary]] a bit carelessly and expected warnings before any block. I think users should know that they can get blocked easily on Conservapedia. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:41, 29 November 2008 (EST):::::As stated above it has certainly been my experience that the section included by [[User:Gulik|Gulik]] accurately reflects the site's policies (both stated and unstated). However, I would prefer the version that I reinstated (which I think was more measured). ::::::I don't see why the section should not be included so long as it is accurate. Otherwise persons considering editing Conservapedia are very likely to receive a rude shock when they are blocked unexpectedly. It is a way for WikiIndex to assist its users. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:10, 29 November 2008 (EST)Most countries don't follow caveat emptor. Even the United States has consumer protection legislation. I think we are helping potential users by warning them about Conservapedia's blocking policy. The oponents of Conservapedia have compromised a great deal. I think this should stay. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:20, 30 November 2008 (EST):As long as it's done politely, I think it's appropriate. The long list of abuses (One editor did this; "nonsense" seems to mean anything factual) was fairly ridiculous. But helpful advice seems to be a good thing, and fairly "WikiWay" in that it is feedback and guidelines to help the community. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 12:17, 30 November 2008 (EST)::But is this really Conservapedia's blocking ''policy''? I see one person's ''opinion'' of what it is. I haven't looked at the rewrite yet, though. I still think we shouldn't be evaluating the worth of the content or the experience of the wikis we list here. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 17:53, 1 December 2008 (EST):::How can I put this politely? Conservapedia has a rather noticeable disconnect between its STATED policies for sysops and the way those sysops actually ACT. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 15:26, 4 December 2008 (EST)::::That was polite. :-) --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 15:54, 4 December 2008 (EST) ==WtF?==This article wasn't even controversial. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 06:09, 6 September 2009 (EDT):I was surprised also. [[User talk:This is not the solution#Thanks to everyone for the cooling off - here is my idea on how to move through this.|Dilley said he was planning on doing it]], but I thought he had changed his mind or something. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:39, 7 September 2009 (EDT) ==Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 [[Sysops]] & 3 people involved [[User talk:This is not the solution#Thanks to everyone for the cooling off - here is my idea on how to move through this.|in the conflict]]==:What bloody conflict?! The only recent edit was Rpeh updating the stats! Ugh... UPDATE people SET sanity="insane" WHERE name="MarkDilley"; [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 10:08, 8 September 2009 (EDT)::I've already [http://www.wikiindex.org/User_talk:MarkDilley#Deletions_and_Protections made that point] but fingers seem to be in ears and the strains of "La la la! Can't hear you!" echo over the land. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] 10:18, 8 September 2009 (EDT)::Very well then. Perhaps people have left this place because it was so boring before this event, and that is why you were unaware of any [[User talk:This is not the solution#Thanks to everyone for the cooling off - here is my idea on how to move through this.|conflict]]. Would you gentlemen make controversy out of a harmless proposal to have pages devoted to criticism (or debate) for wikis such as these? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:30, 8 September 2009 (EDT)::: OMG it's Ken. [[User:Rpeh|rpeh]] 16:39, 8 September 2009 (EDT):::: Well, now I implore of you; was ''that'' really worthy of announcing over the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_address PA system] of [[User talk:Lumenos#Rpeh.27s second example of .22trolling.22|the sacred "Recent Changes"]]? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:17, 8 September 2009 (EDT) ==Now what?==Are we supposed to edit this or just list suggestions? In any case, I think the "Suggested guidelines for prospective editors" section should be removed. Wikiindex shouldn't encourage sockpuppeting and should remain neutral [[User:Nx|Nx]] 07:29, 6 September 2009 (EDT):Editing above the TOC. I'll second that proposal! [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:30, 8 September 2009 (EDT) ==Move to article page - vote==As the statement at the top says: ''Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 [[Sysops]] and 3 people involved'' I propose that we do just that.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 08:13, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::It's still biased and unnecessary. It's not our job to "protect" people from overzealous sysops. Caveat emptor. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 19:53, 28 November 2008 (EST)::::::::And I've reverted it right back. I've been watching CP ===Vote for over a year now, and those ''are'' their policies. It ain't pretty. re--[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 21:16, 28 November 2008 (EST)insertion===:::::::::I'm glad someone's watching them, but that's not really the point of WikiIndex. It's not our job to make up people's minds for them. Sounds like that's Conservapedia's job. ;-) But seriously, it seems to me that the consensus here on this talk page had been established and it did not include your ''interpretation'' of their policies. I'd like to hear from other people, though. --[[User:MarvelZuvembieBob M|MarvelZuvembieBob M]] 0108:13, 29 November 2008 (EST)::::::::::I haven’t had unexpected blocks on Conservapedia. I knew what Conservapedia is like from RationalWiki before I started editing Conservapedia. I have had unexpected blocks on other Wikis with different usernames. I was editing [[Wiktionary]] a bit carelessly and expected warnings before any block. I think users should know that they can get blocked easily on Conservapedia. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 02:41, 29 November 2008 (EST):::::::::::As stated above it has certainly been my experience that the section included by [[User:Gulik|Gulik]] accurately reflects the site's policies (both stated and unstated). However, I would prefer the version that I reinstated 10 September 2009 (which I think was more measuredEDT).
:::::::::::I don't see why the {{Table of articles}}<!--keep this section should not be included so long as it is accurate. Otherwise persons considering editing Conservapedia are very likely to receive a rude shock when they are blocked unexpectedly. It is a way for WikiIndex to assist its users. and table at the BOTTOM of this talk page--[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:10, 29 November 2008 (EST)>