Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia"
m (Reverted edits by Jeb Berkeley (Talk); changed back to last version by Cracker) |
Jeb Berkeley (talk | contribs) (whyte poure) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The site was founded by [[Andrew Schlafly]],<ref name="LAtimes">[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-schlafly19jun19,0,1038574.story?coll=la-home-center LA times]</ref> offspring of professional anti-feminist [[Phyllis Schlafly]],<ref>[http://www.sunjournal.com/story/205234-3/LewistonAuburn/Schlafly_cranks_up_agitation_at_Bates/ Sun Journal]</ref> in an attempt to offset what he perceived as an excessive [[Liberal Bias]] at [[Wikipedia]].<ref name="LAtimes"/> Conservapedia's goal is to try to create a version of Wikipedia that has a [[Conservative Bias]], especially when it comes to issues where politics and fundamentalist Christianity overlap, such as [[creationism]], [[evolution]], [[:category:Human Sexuality|sexuality]] and morality.<ref>[http://fundiewatch.blogspot.com/2007/03/fundies-create-unbiased-conservative.html Fundie Watch]</ref> | The site was founded by [[Andrew Schlafly]],<ref name="LAtimes">[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-schlafly19jun19,0,1038574.story?coll=la-home-center LA times]</ref> offspring of professional anti-feminist [[Phyllis Schlafly]],<ref>[http://www.sunjournal.com/story/205234-3/LewistonAuburn/Schlafly_cranks_up_agitation_at_Bates/ Sun Journal]</ref> in an attempt to offset what he perceived as an excessive [[Liberal Bias]] at [[Wikipedia]].<ref name="LAtimes"/> Conservapedia's goal is to try to create a version of Wikipedia that has a [[Conservative Bias]], especially when it comes to issues where politics and fundamentalist Christianity overlap, such as [[creationism]], [[evolution]], [[:category:Human Sexuality|sexuality]] and morality.<ref>[http://fundiewatch.blogspot.com/2007/03/fundies-create-unbiased-conservative.html Fundie Watch]</ref> | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{Un}} | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{ED}} | ||
==Philosophical Stance== | ==Philosophical Stance== |
Revision as of 04:08, 2 October 2007
Trus me Conservapedia |
Introduction |
Commentary |
In-depth analysis |
Fun |
I'm so awfully glad I'm not a liberal.
~ Conservapedia Motto of the Day
Conservapedia[1] is the latest public manifestation of how the American fundamentalist Christian right "thinks". It is a wiki-based attempt to build a heavily biased encyclopedia. Due to its bias, it ends up portraying liberals, atheists, and homosexuals (along with whoever the "bête noire du jour" is, like Muslims) as being evil[2] and anti-American.[3] Their attacks on these groups are fueled by traditionalism and jingoistic pro-Americanism. It has been called "The Watchtower of the Internet."[4]
The site was founded by Andrew Schlafly,[5] offspring of professional anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly,[6] in an attempt to offset what he perceived as an excessive Liberal Bias at Wikipedia.[5] Conservapedia's goal is to try to create a version of Wikipedia that has a Conservative Bias, especially when it comes to issues where politics and fundamentalist Christianity overlap, such as creationism, evolution, sexuality and morality.[7]
Philosophical Stance
Conservapedia (The Trusworthy [sic] Encyclopedia) is an encyclopedia with an American Conservative Christian point of view. But what exactly do these terms mean? Some of Conservapedia's main tenets include:
- Biblical Literalism, often putting Old Testament writings ahead of the actual teachings of Jesus.
- A young-earth creationist viewpoint
- Anti-homosexual[8]
- Anti-abortion[9]
- Anti-sex-education in schools[10]
- Pro-capital punishment
- Global Warming Denialism[11]
- Anti-environmental controls
- Anti-Islam
- Pro-Israel
- Anti-"liberal"[12] (a pejorative term for any viewpoint that contradicts CP's views)
- Anti-Government
- Anti-Public School
- Anti-Public Health System
- Anti-gun control[13]
- Anti-Medicare
- Anti-vaccination[14]
- Anti-Minimum Wage
- Anti-left wing economics in general, and anything that will help the working classes dig themselves out of poverty
- Pro-Neoliberalism and Laissez faire
- Pro-homeschooling (religious)[15]
- Anti-United Nations[16]
- Anti-European
- Anti-Canadian
- Anti-Democratic Party
- Anti-Independent Party
- Anti-Green Party
- Anti-Socialist Party
- Anti-relativity - both in the moral sense and in terms of physics
- (Basically anti-everyone but them.)
See also: Conservapedia:Delusions
Management
Currently, Conservapedia ("CP" for short) is managed by Aschlafly[17] and a group of homeschooled teenagers known as "The Panel",[18] who seem to have given up on Conservapedia because not a single panel request has been considered yet[19]. While there is a list of Conservapedia Commandments, they seem to be mostly honored in the breach, and their basic policy seems to be banning people for ideological differences, attempts at humor, or backtalking to them. The latest expansion on this is the "Scorched Earth Editing Policy", in which after banning someone, they undo all of that person's recent edits, just to make certain the filthy heretic doesn't feel like trying to get back on to vandalize the site further by posting more facts the sysops don't agree with.
Liberal revulsion for Conservapedia is mollified by the knowledge that a Wikipedia-like site can only thrive with a relatively free exchange of ideas and some tolerance for vandals, hoaxers, and crackpots, and the gang of beady-eyed zealots running CP are going to stifle it to death while thinking they're 'protecting' it. (For an example, look at all the pages that various editors have locked so that nobody can 'deface' them, thus preventing anyone from improving them as well.)
Lately, Conservapedia has taken the extreme step of preventing any user from registering a new account or making any edits at certain times of the day unless granted special rights. [20]
The management at Conservapedia also struggles with the wiki software; Some sysops do not know how to unblock users.[21]
Accuracy of Conservapedia
Conservapedia, like any encyclopedia (especially those of a wiki format), is prone to errors. There is reason to believe that Conservapedia is actually far inferior to Wikipedia and that its articles are not to be trusted. Conservapedia's math and history articles have been criticized for a plethora of errors,[22] while a numerical comparison of Conservapedia articles with articles in Wikipedia have shown Conservapedia's articles to be lagging in quality.[23]
Interesting Gaps in Conservapedia
Like the press of the now-defunct USSR, paying attention to what Conservapedia doesn't say can be just as enlightening as what it does say. For example, various human bodily parts have been permanently banned from having entries on CP, leading to CP having thousands of words about why a woman shouldn't have an abortion, and not one word on the organs involved in getting her pregnant in the first place.[24][25]
Conservapedia and Fear of the Unknown
As is common with very conservative groups throughout history, much of their fear stems from unfamiliarity with diverse, nuanced situations and a tendency to believe others are conspiring against them. The former creates fear in the ultra-conservative mind that their position in society is not secure; the latter defines their obsession with security issues.
In the case of Conservapedia, these fears are realized in deletion of user pages and the site as a whole spending an inordinate amount of time tracking down vandalism and protecting pages.
Though certainly not all will agree, this “fear of the unknown” is often used to explain so-called “blind faith.”
Conservapedia v. Wikipedia: A self-proclaimed battle!
Conservapedia claims 16 differences with Wikipedia[26] that they assert make it far superior to what is often considered the best general resource on the web.[27] The differences range from:
- Proveably false: Conservapedia claims Wikipedia is commercial because it is creating a for-profit search engine;[26] it is not.[28]
- Unfounded: Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia allows gossip;[26] this is hard to prove or disprove.
- Frivolous: Conservapedia claims that they keep the number of templates in their articles down.[26]
Teaching value
Conservapedia continually claims that Wikipedia is noneducational.
The real test of an "encyclopedia" is how clearly and concisely it explains something to an inquiring student or adult. Any objective evaluation of Wikipedia entries in terms of their ability to teach has to give Wikipedia an "F". -Aschlafly[29]
While Wikipedia may not be the most authoritative reference site on the web it certainly does not deserve an "F". Studies have shown that Wikipedia is comparable or nearly as good as Encyclopædia Britannica[30] which is universally accepted as a good educational resource. Additionally, Andy's very premise is flawed. The real test of an encyclopedia is not "how clearly and concisely it explains something to an inquiring student or adult." Rather it is how broad, accurate, and complete its coverage is. "Concise" is one of Andy's favorite words, by which he means "brief". By that measurement, CP is an excellent site. Unless you're explaining the evils of homosexuality, evolution, or atheism, the general rule on CP seems to be that a few sentences will do. They hold to that pretty well. Britannica, for example, is far from concise, and often not particularly clear. Andy, one must suppose, would assert that CP is a superior encyclopedia, a laughable assertion on anyone's terms. In terms of coverage that is broad, accurate, or complete, CP gets at best a D-. Whatever one chooses to give Wikipedia, it's certainly much better than that.
Pornography
Another common claim at Conservapedia is that Wikipedia is trafficking pornography to minors.
Wikipedia is feeding pornography to children. -Aschlafly[31]
Justice in Conservapedia
The rule of law at Conservapedia is enforced by the sysops. There is a code of rules known as the Conservapedia Commandments but they are seldom followed. The sysops block arbitrarily, passing out bans upon any and all who disagree with them. The only function for the rules is that they are occasionally used to justify disciplinary action.
One of the most commonly abused rules is an unofficial one not actually on the rule book[32] called the 90/10 rule which states that editors must have 90% of their edits in the main space and only 10% in talk spaces. If they were to follow this rule they would have to ban roughly 80% of their regular editors. In fact not one of the major Sysops (Aschlafly[33], TK[34], Conservative[35], Karajou[36]) at Conservapedia is in compliance with the rule. Instead when ever they come across an editor who brings up a point they disagree with (No matter how well sourced or logical) they will ban them and use the 90:10 as justification.
Commandment 1 says to not copy "from Wikipedia or elsewhere"[37], but most users and many of the more active sysops copy and paste regularly [38][39], but when an editor copies and pastes an article that they disagree with, they will delete it for plagiarism. The Conservapedia article Arguments for the existence of God was copied and pasted and the user who created it admitted it in the edit summary saying "(copied from theopedia.com / public domain)".[40] When an article was copied off RationalWiki (Which is under the same licensing as Theopedia) they deleted it because "copied from RationalWiki".
Censorship in Conservapedia
Conservapedia is often guilty of one of their most common claims against Wikipedia, censorship. Conservapedia, for example, deleted a section of an article on persecution of Christians that pointed out Christians sometimes persecuted other religious sects, and in the article on the Intifada deleted an addition pointing out mildly that innocent Palestinians have also been killed.
Conservapedia has frequently been criticized for its long list of protected pages. Several controversial pages (Homosexuality[41], Theory of evolution[42], George W Bush[43], Goat[44], etc..) are listed as protected and locked (supposedly to prevent vandalism) When a page is protected, it can only be edited by certain Sysops, who are always promoted based on their staunch conservative viewpoint. Additionally, individual users can request unprotection to make a specific edit. However, many editors have complained that Sysops are quick to delete or change any comments they don't agree with and once the page is relocked, the original editor can no longer revert.
Another frequent complaint is that Conservapedia Sysops simply ban any members they don't agree with, frequently with no chance of recreation, leading many to claim that they censor in a roundabout way, by removing any opposing viewpoints.
Recently Conservapedia seems to have locked all pages to prevent editing. This seems to have ended, but many pages are locked on a more or less permanent basis[45], at the behest of various Sysops.
Banning Users
Conservapedia's sysops generally seem to be inclined to ban (meaning, block[46] access "forever") editors as quickly as possible, for even the most frivolous of reasons. Until recently, we thought that this was simply due to their massive tendencies towards paranoia and authoritarian abuse of power, but we now realize this serves a practical purpose as well. To maintain ideological purity and keep out their many imagined enemies, CP's sysops have to vet every individual edit. The more users they have, the less possible this becomes--it's possible they're near the limit now.
Speculation and Theories
One theory which has emerged is that Conservapedia is not run by the Religious Right at all; that instead is an extreme parody of fringe loonbags, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, since it is hard to imagine such a large group of people being so loopdy loopder. Either way, though, it is undoubtedly the case that if Conservapedia is written by real people, we should pity them instead of being angered by them.
Site Statistics
Alexa.com, a website traffic ranking site, tracks visits by users of its Alexa Toolbar software, and offers one way to monitor the popularity of Conservapedia. As of September 2007, the site receives barely 5% the number of visits it received in March of 2007, when the blog frenzy brought it into the public eye. Alexa currently estimates it being visited by only 0.0007% of the global Alexa userbase - this figure is down 29% over the past three months. Ranked as the 170,000th most visited site on the internet, this figure is down by 14% from its position three months ago. Page views too are very significantly down, with visitors now viewing less than three pages on the site on average - this is down from more than five pageviews as of three months ago. Approximately 50% of their total traffic is estimated to come from the United States, and oddly the site is ranked quite highly in Norway, where it is in the top 6,000.
Andy Schlafly routinely states that Conservapedia gets lots of page views, and thus believes that people are using it as the encyclopedia it pretends to be. While it is very difficult to ascertain who is viewing the site and why, googling conservapedia yields more than half a million hits, though many are quite dubious. Ignoring the first two hits (which are for the site itself) nearly all the top results on google criticize or mock Conservapedia, with the (ironic) exception on listing #3, Wikipedia, which gives it about as fair an entry as one could hope for.
See Also
- Examples of absurdities at Conservapedia
- Idiocracy
- Conservapedia
- Blog about conservapedia
- Reading Comprehension
- CreationWiki
- Liberapedia--Another wiki made in response to Conservapedia
References and notes
- ↑ Also known as Moronopedia, since http://moronopedia.com will redirect you to Conservapedia.
- ↑ As a self-proclaimed pro-Christian site, anything they "don't like" is by default, "evil".
- ↑ As a self-proclaimed pro-American site, anything they "don't like" is by default, "anti-American" - in fact, since they fly the U.S. flag over every article in their logo, it can be derived by simple logic that anything Conservapedia criticizes is anti-American.
- ↑ http://www.rationalwiki.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=684
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 LA times
- ↑ Sun Journal
- ↑ Fundie Watch
- ↑ Conservapedia:Homosexuality
- ↑ Conservapedia:Abortion
- ↑ Johnswift blogspot
- ↑ Conservapedia:Global Warming
- ↑ Mars Hill
- ↑ Conservapedia:Gun Controll
- ↑ Smallpox and vaccination on Conservapedia
- ↑ CP:Homeschooling
- ↑ CP:United nations
- ↑ Wikipedia:Conservapedia
- ↑ CP:User:CPanel
- ↑ Conservapedia:Panel/Submit - history
- ↑ Conservapedia:User talk:Aschafly
- ↑ User Talk:Bohdan - History
- ↑ Abstract Nonsense:Conservapedia
- ↑ AJS.com
- ↑ Conservapedia:Vagina
- ↑ Conservapedia:Penis
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 CP:Differences with Wikipedia
- ↑ BestStuff
- ↑ Wikimedia press realese
- ↑ CP:talk:examples of bias in wikipedia - diff
- ↑ Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Comparative_studies
- ↑ CP:talk:examples of bias in wikipedia - diff
- ↑ Conservapedia:User talk:Roopilots6
- ↑ Editcount:Aschlafly
- ↑ Editcount:Tk
- ↑ Editcount:conservative
- ↑ Editcount:Karajou
- ↑ Conservapedia:Commandments
- ↑ Conservapedia:Blatant Plagiarism
- ↑ Conservapedia:Article Creation Record Attempt (June 23)
- ↑ Conservapedia:Arguments for the existence of God - History
- ↑ Conservapedia:Homosexuality - Logs
- ↑ Conservapedia:Theory of evolution - Logs
- ↑ Conservapedia:George w. Bush - Logs
- ↑ Conservapedia:Goat - Logs
- ↑ CP: Long-protected pages
- ↑ Note, RationalWiki does just fine blocking vandals - real vandals - for as little as a day. Then they get bored and go away.