Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them. Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered.Rebiu 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. I see several articles about people who never existed, but sound like they might have. Case in point, all the Spanish profanity on the Cambodia page that sat there for over a month until I decided to let everyone in on the joke. Czolgolz 13:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there's a lemma to Clarke's Law which says that "Any sufficiently fervently held belief is indistinguishable from satire".

how does Wikipedia do it?Jaques 13:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has thousands of times more users...and hence is much more likely to notice factual errors. Conservapdia has a small (as of now) user base, and hence, articles may go weeks, or even months without anyone noticing incorrect dates, spellings, facts, and blatant fabrications. Czolgolz 13:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.Jaques 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like this, or this, or his contributions here. When I first read the first of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it was a liberal satire. Chrysogonus 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think liberal satirists are talented enough to produce something like that, which takes someone a bit special. --Jeremiah4-22 15:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Really? Because there are several satire articles on here. I'd name them, but I'm just a dumb ol liberal. Czolgolz 15:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

"Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered." How can you say that? All that's here is politics and religion. And how can a website set up to be a conservative encyclopedia claim to be unbiased? -LiberalScientificPatriot

If you think that's all we have, then you haven't explored the whole site. DanH 15:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

This may sound a bit controversial but there is a low editor base here compared with say WP. Even if someone has written a liberal satire would other liberals neccessarily notice it? I don't think that would always be the case. I have seen several instances of supposed satire that have been changed by supposedly liberal editors. I think that blocking too many contributors actually increases the amount of vandalism rather than the other way round, a bit like gun control, I guess. InGodWeTrust 16:20, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

There are satire articles and edits on here which the people running the site will never spot, because they simply don't know enough about the world. Some of them are very funny, and most of those that I've noticed are not mocking of conservatism or religion, they just make use of some of the prejudices and blind spots which conservatives (American conservatives in particular) have. One satire I noticed very probably breaches copyright law, but hell will freeze over before anyone gets sued over it, as it started out as satire; I imagine its original author would be delighted to find it here. I can't see how this site will operate without such vandalism taking place, but that's the price you pay for trying to put a conservative spin on truth. --Beanbag 21:19, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Oh, please. Don't be so vague. Do tell. What is this magic satirical article that we will never spot because we are such slack-jawed goobers? Jinxmchue 13:27, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
I don't think Beanbag will, it's his last contribution to this site and it's from over an year ago... SilvioB 13:44, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Oh. lol! Didn't notice the year. Jinxmchue 14:06, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
The same happened to me. I first noticed that the other posts were old. Only then I checked again... SilvioB 14:28, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
Well, in any case, these claims are never proven. I saw the same thing claimed over on R a t i o n a l Wiki recently and no one was forthcoming with any proof. If it were so widespread, they could easily cite a single example. And with as old as the claim here by Beanbag is, it's probably been discovered and changed since then if it existed in the first place. Jinxmchue 14:56, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

i thin i good way to keep people from being liberal satierists would be to gave them take a test before the joind the website, having them answwer questions to see if they are a liberal or not, and if they are they cant join! then we can keep the commie freaks out of this website.(ps. that was a me being a liberal satiersit. god you people are ignorant:) )--Americaman 22:41, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Okay, so I know the above comment sounded completely like a joke, but to be serious for a second, why not simply forbid IP address users, or new users from editing? Only allow them to edit talk pages, and enforce a rule that only 1-month old or older accounts can be used for the main pages. Sensitive pages like Barack Obama or Atheism should of course only be edited by senior administrators with more say. This process should eliminate most satire, as most serious folks will not bother waiting for a month.--Quasimodo 19:28, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

I think that if Conservative values are well inegrated into the Life Experience, then that foundation would make counterfeit offerings stand out like sore thumbs. It was Jesus who said that His Sheep would hear His Voice and would not be inclined to follow another. If one will take the time to compare what is being presented for consideration with the known values and standards of Conservative thought and belief, then the act of comparison will reveal the flaws in the counterfeit. Knowing your stuff is the best defense against being deceived. User:ManrayL 10:39 AM (EST) 2/28/2012

Personal tools