Talk:Conservapedia

Original research?

Do you think my comparison of the block lists for Wikipedia, Citizendium and Conservapedia constitute original research? I'm not sure. If so, delete or modify. John Stephenson 23:36, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Article count

The real question isn't how many articles there are, but what the total word count is, and how many of words are garbage! --Larry Sanger 00:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

This obviously is not a Religion Workgroup article. What do religious scholars know about it? Conservapedia is politically slanted, first and foremost. --Larry Sanger 00:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

I have removed [[Category: Religion Workgroup]] given this criticism; however, I'd say it is peripherally to do with that group because of the religious aspect of Conservapedia. Apart from the creationism stuff, they do have a Bible quote-of-the-day on the main page. John Stephenson 03:38, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Would National Review be in the Religion Workgroup as well? Perhaps The Nation should be, because they have so many atheist writers? --Larry Sanger 08:25, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Neutral Point of View?

The first sentence of this entry leaves a great deal to be desired from a 'neutral point of view' standpoint. There is a strong implication that a conservative point of view is a "pro-American" point of view. That almost certainly is the viewpoint of Conservapedia, but it shouldn't be the viewpoint of Citizendium. (Simply massaging the sentence a bit might take care of the problem.)

Roger Lohmann 15:17, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

It definitely has had a political slant. However, I have found the project director amenable to softening some of the site's stances. I am intensely interested in the differences between Conservapedia, Citizendium and Wikipedia. Is there a place around here to discuss this? Or a mailing list perhaps? --Ed Poor 16:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Try http://forum.citizendium.org/ - not sure which board I'd use, perhaps Chat or Non-member discussion. --Larry Sanger 23:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Science and Creationism

Cut from article text:

Similarly, the site often promotes a creationist perspective which is flatly contradicted by overwhelming scientific evidence; its article on kangaroos, for instance, prioritises the idea that these marsupials did not evolve but are descended from a pair that boarded Noah's Ark. The site has attracted heavy criticism and ridicule as a result of pages such as this,

I'd like to learn more about "overwhelming scientific evidence" regarding evolution. Do biologists know which animal kangaroos are descended from? (Or is it a conjecture, based on the principle that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," as Dobzhansky says.

Perhaps we could say that proponents of evolution have criticized and ridiculed the project for its defiance of the mainstream perspective. But correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure how — (The Constabulary has removed an initialism here. Please use plain English instead, for example, "unbiased" or "neutral" ) — works here.

How much weight does one side have to have, before we give up being neutral about a dispute and simply endorse that side? For example, there is no serious dispute that Larry Sanger cofounded Wikipedia. --Ed Poor 16:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Hi Ed, we use this version of CZ:Neutrality Policy here. Also, take a look at CZ:Professionalism to refresh your memory as well. D. Matt Innis 16:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Challenging sysops

I have removed the following sentance: Debate about topics - rather than discussion of how to improve an article - is tolerated; so is questioning the character or judgment of contributors and sysops. because this is patently untrue. I know this not just from my own experiences but from observing how the '90/10' rule is implemented. Often, users who raise questions on talk pages (The Dawkins and Obama pages being spectacular cases in point) get banned if they continue to interrogate the logic behind the arguments made (Such as the semi-racist charge that Obama is a secret muslim). Please discuss on this talk page if you disagree with the reversion. Denis Cavanagh 18:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Denis, perhaps it is a matter of perspective, and instead of simply deleting the sentence, we could say something like, "Conservapedia's defenders maintain that debate about topics--rather than discussion of how to improve an article--is tolerated; so is questioning the character or judgment of contributors and sysops. But critics say that after they have raised questions on talk pages, they have been banned. The best understanding of such disputes no doubt depends on one's political orientation." Again, something like that--in order to preserve our commitment to CZ:Neutrality Policy, q.v.

The article does need work, but I encourage everyone at work on it to bear in mind that we must not make CZ say things about which either liberals/Conservapedia critics or conservatives/Conservapedia defenders would have serious objections. We do not write for our own side; we write in order to represent all sides. --Larry Sanger 23:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Within reason, of course. We've hashed this out in a million other places: an article about Evolution does not have to contain 50 percent of its material about Intelligent design. Or maybe anything more than a single sentence buried somewhere deep within. Hayford Peirce 01:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Larry, that might be an acceptable compromise. I would like to stress my concerns about the author of the largest part of this article, considering his role on conservapedia. Please take a look at some of his conservapedia contributions to see what I'm talking about. Denis Cavanagh 13:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Denis, glad to see you back! While you were gone, we had a lot of discussions about formatting and, as the box above now says, we'd like all contributors to play by the rules and indent their new comments accordingly. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 15:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Denis, I should have mentioned that I'm glad to see you back too! If you have any concerns that a contributor should register as a topic informant, please contact me or the Constabulary directly. --Larry Sanger 00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back! I had intended to come back earlier after my huff period, but college work and life in general rose its head. And apologies for my admittedly poor talk page etiquette... Denis Cavanagh 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly a Conservapedia insider. Whether this means I know more and my words should carry extra weight - or I'm obviously "just a booster" and my words should be taken with a grain of salt - I leave up to you all.

What do you want to know about it? --Ed Poor 16:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, at some point, depending on what level of indents we've reached, we're allowed to start over again, hehe! (We had a very disruptive case while you were on sabbatical that sort of galvanized the whole issue.)Hayford Peirce 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How Conservapedia is viewed

I read the latest article version, and I feel that it focuses too much on how Conservapedia views itself, as well as on how critics feel that view is contradicted by 'the evidence'.

There is not much about what Conservapedia actually is - or aims to be - or has done - or currently provides.

CP has experimented with policies and rules, many of which I myself wrote (or cobble together from scattered pronouncements by project founder Andy Schlafly). Most of the attention the website seems to attract is about these rules: are they "fair" (or applied "fairly"), etc. --Ed Poor 16:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed Poor as Conservapedia topic informant

Following Ed Poor's post above (16:26), I wonder if someone (Larry or an Editorial Council person maybe) could decide whether or not Ed would count as a Topic Informant. --Tom Morris 16:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Without getting into the ins and outs of this particular article, or of the people involved, I would say that in a general way no one should have "special editing powers". Ever. On any article. Citizens are either Editors or Authors, or somethings both. But not "special". Until they are redefined by changes in the basic Charter. Hayford Peirce 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone is intimately familiar with a subject, that does not necessarily make him a topic informant (see CZ:Policy on Topic Informants and bear in mind that the TI workgroup is defunct according to the policy on that page, though the mailing list for it still exists and has people on it). A Topic Informant has to have a personal stake in a topic (e.g., the subject of a biography), to be a representative of a business, etc. Andy Schafly, for example, would be a topic informant about Conservapedia. Ed Poor could be only if he were a co-owner, employee, or, perhaps, a very high-level manager. What ultimately matters is whether a person can speak for or on behalf of the subject(s) of an article. I don't know, but I doubt Ed qualifies.

I'm not altogether comfortable discussing this here on this page, because it concerns a particular Citizen, and no volunteer comes here only to be put under the spotlight. So please let us not extend any discussion of poor Ed ;-) beyond the very narrow question of his relationship to Conservapedia.

Being identified as a Topic Informant does not give a person special editing rights; in fact, it can be the reverse. While we never settled definitely on this, I would be in favor of removing all rights of topic informants to edit articles about which they are topic informants--for reasons of conflict of interest, of course. But we do recognize that they have certain special rights. --Larry Sanger 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand better now. Denis Cavanagh 11:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

experts at CZ -- quotation reference

is there actually any place in CZ where this quotation is made: "pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research". If not, then the part of the article that states this should be rewritten. This may well be CZ policy, but I rather doubt that it is stated in such dogmatic fashion. I could be wrong, however. If so, just point me to the place where it is.... Hayford Peirce 05:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a Conservapedia quote. John Stephenson 05:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)