Conservapedia:How do Wikipedians see Conservapedia?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Comments from 2 or 3 users who did not want to be quoted have been removed.

<Ed_Poor> hi all
<Larrylaptop> hi
<Ed_Poor> What's the difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia?
<Ed_Poor> Does either have a "bias"?
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: you know I respect you very highly
<Larrylaptop> The difference is that conservapedia has quality material of the type I just linked
<Larrylaptop> Well quality comedy material
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: did you read what I said?
<Ed_Poor> Sorry I just got here 3 minutes ago and didn't see anything before "hi all"
<Ed_Poor> Okay, that's one difference: it is unabashedly US-centric in its "conservatism"
<Ed_Poor> Oh, i think I wrote that line *blush*
<Larrylaptop> User #4 - you should have read the british conservative article
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: you know I respect you very highly
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> ... to recap...
<Larrylaptop> It claimed that lost the election because of Dunblaine (sp)
<Larrylaptop> Then you have the major structure problems - Sysops reverting to their own versions and then locking the pages
<Ed_Poor> I'm aware of the problem of "page ownership"
<Larrylaptop> The fact that requests for sources can be answered with "Well it's logical to me and I don't think the article needs sources" so I'll lock it at my version
<Ed_Poor> That's not good of course
<Larrylaptop> The poorly defined rules that many sysops don't understand or follow
<Larrylaptop> For example one sysop committed copyvio and then locked it with the copyvio to prevent people removing it!
<Larrylaptop> Not really - the difference is in intent, as far as I can work out the rules at CP are vague on purpose, so sysops can ban or lock under any pretext
<Ed_Poor> Larrylaptop, that is a common perception - one I am currently trying to change
  • Ed_Poor likes getting constructive criticism
<Larrylaptop> Any site where you have to made a detailed argument to get a link to Dawin's origin work on a TOE page is clearly broken
<Ed_Poor> Okay, on Darwin we're just not going to agree.
<Larrylaptop> But that's not an argument for me that the theory of evolution is true - that's an argument about what makes a good argument
<Ed_Poor> That is one "area" in which it is obvious that there is pro-Creation bias.
<Larrylaptop> If you are writing about the work of Darwin and his work is freely available and unabridged online - it's bizarre not to link directly to it
<Ed_Poor> "What a good argument" could be an interesting topic
<Larrylaptop> sorry I meant "what makes a good article"
<Ed_Poor> Oh . . .
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: you do know that butterflies do change their colour due to soot on tree trunks?
<Ed_Poor> I think i started a page on How to write a good article
<Ed_Poor> cimon, I have been trying to find evidence for this and would l-o-v-e to see a link
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: also a very clear example of adaptation is feral rabbits here in the capital of Finland...
<Ed_Poor> I freely admit to being biased towards Wells (my former housemate)
<Larrylaptop> The other thing is - the sysops are spending so much time on articles like TOE that vandals are running rampant on any other article
<Ed_Poor> User #5, over the past month, one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors joined Conservapedia and was voted SYSOP unanimously by the "student board"
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: genuinely the feral rabbits were of all colours initially, but have shown signs of adapting to blonding during the winter, activating old genetic methods...
<Larrylaptop> The other problem I think you have is that "breaking News" section on the front page - it's generally just used for attacks on various people - it's not really the tone an encyclopedia wants to set
<Ed_Poor> Larrylaptop, if you want to fight vandalism I'll nominate you for sysop
<Ed_Poor> Oh, I rarely read that section.
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> hweh
<Larrylaptop> As a front page item, it creates a perception problem
<Ed_Poor> I'm not really sure what Andy Schlafly's long term plans are. I suggested that CP can become a sort of wiki-thinktank eventually
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: it is even better than that, the rabbits aren' turning white as snow, but gray as asphalt, which is very urban...
<Ed_Poor> Well - re front page - he seems to want to go on the offensive against liberal bias
<Larrylaptop> Well to be fair, I think it might have to be modified in that way and in some ways that would allow the biases to be more up front and incorporated more explicitly in policy
<Ed_Poor> I'm more interested in (1) good articles and (2) community building
<Ed_Poor> Does anyone mind if I copy this discussion and post it at Conservapedia? With stray comments deleted of course.
<Larrylaptop> The community building is going to be difficult as you now have a number of sysops (and we don't need to discuss individuals) who are embedded and are just not suitable for the post
<Larrylaptop> No problem
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: I am not saying that adaptation == evolution, but adaptation is definitely documentable...
<Ed_Poor> Anyone who doesn't want their name used I can specify as #1, #2 etc.
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> lol
<Larrylaptop> Ed - is there a page anywhere suitable sources are defined?
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: attribute mine as Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, as that iws my real naem,.
<Ed_Poor> cimon, I'm aware of adaptation as used in human-directed breeding schemes. The principle is undeniable.
<Ed_Poor> Okay, Jussi.
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: nope, I am talking about adaptation in terms of natural selection...
<Ed_Poor> Well, except for the authorized transcript of this specific conversation wherien cimon and Larrylaptop have agreed to be quoted - all other remarks will remain here.
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> hehe
<Ed_Poor> I might be "bold" (reckless?) but no one has ever accused me of breaking my word.
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Ed_Poor: You do realize thet I have no credentials, so am just shooting the breeze...
  • Ed_Poor has also been called foolish, overbearing, incompetent, arrogant & condescending
<Jussi-Ville Heiskanen> Which does not change the faxt that I am correct on the facts.
<Ed_Poor> Reading up 5 minutes back, Larrylaptop, you began talking about some ways that would allow the biases to be more upfront and incorporated more explicitly in policy
<Larrylaptop> Yes if the mission of the site was modified to be a thinktank rather than a enc
<Larrylaptop> That's causing a lot of tension and problems
<Ed_Poor> Larrylaptop, the problem of people who are not suited for their posts, but having too much power, is as old as the hills. "The Emperor's New Clothes" mentions it, and so does The Peter Principle.
<Larrylaptop> *but* ed - the problem is that the current ratio of Sysops to users means that the control is so tight that it's restrict the growth of the site (and wiki could be accused of being too far the other way)
<Larrylaptop> Oh I'm sure this is logged 24/7 by various people
<Larrylaptop> Talking of the reality vs the ideal - if you check out the http://www.conservapedia.com/Differences_with_Wikipedia
<Larrylaptop> most of those are not true in practice
<Ed_Poor> Larrylaptop, the problem of tight control by sysops worries me too.
<Ed_Poor> I'm not concerned by colour and centre or BCE or CE very much, but Andy chose to be US-centric and pro-Christian.
<Larrylaptop> I think the other reason that it will have to be a think-tank is that it's seems to have stalled in terms of growth and I don't see how it's going to get any significant growth in terms of editors
<Ed_Poor> With 45% of the US adult population being Young Earth creationists . . .
<Larrylaptop> Virtually everyone on the site spends most of their time arguing on the talkpages about policy rather than editing
<Ed_Poor> Anyway, I've never spent any significant time with YECs.
<Larrylaptop> Ed - if it wants to a wiki for that 45%, that's fine but again - why not just make that explict?
<Larrylaptop> or does overlap too much with creationwiki?
<Ed_Poor> Larry, you finally said something that annoys the hell out of me: VIRTUALLY EVERYONE ON THE SITE SPENDS MOST OF THEIR TIME ARGUING ON THE TALKPAGES ABOUT POLICY RATHER THAN EDITING
<Ed_Poor> I have no interest in joining CreationWiki
<Larrylaptop> Me neither
<Ed_Poor> Conservapedia is reaching out to the 55% who aren't YECs.
<Ed_Poor> Andy has not banned anyone for BEING a liberal.
<Ed_Poor> I have blocked a few people for STATING AS FACT a few liberal ideas, but (so far) I have always relented and unblocked them - or let the blocks expire.
<Larrylaptop> HOld on Ed that might be the mission (to reach out to the 55%) but I don't think they are going to see much that is of interest to them - with articles claiming dinosaurs roamed the earth with men and the obbession with working creationism and the bible into every article
<Ed_Poor> I have tried not even to *look* at the articles claiming dinosaurs roamed the earth with men
<Ed_Poor> I didn't come to Conservapedia to pick a battle with YECs. As long as they allow the OEC story to be told, I am content.
<Ed_Poor> I have even been able to make SOME inroads towards describing the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection, but I am handicapped by two factors.
<Ed_Poor> (1) I myself do not understand the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection.
<Ed_Poor> (2) I haven't met anyone who is willing to help me write about it.
<Larrylaptop> Ed - but why are people going to bother given the history of that page?
<Larrylaptop> The churn rate on that page is incredible
<Ed_Poor> Who said anything about "that page"? I started a few other pages.
<Ed_Poor> Origins debate might be short, but (A) it is not protected and (B) no sysop has reverted anything I've put on it.
<Larrylaptop> Ed - that page is the first one that anyone interested in TOE is going to go to - they are not going to bother working on additional related articles after reading that
<Ed_Poor> Yes, I've noticed how lazy some people are!
<Larrylaptop> the other problem is the "panel" - simply put - I don't believe it exists, I think it's just a device for enforcement
<Ed_Poor> "not going to bother"
<Ed_Poor> feh
<Ed_Poor> Well, Larry, you have certainly hit all the main points of objection.
<Ed_Poor> I thank you for your tiime.
<Larrylaptop> no problem
  • Ed_Poor breaks for station identification
<Ed_Poor> We have been conductiong an online discussion of the differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia and examining whether either has a bias.
<Ed_Poor> We have also been discussing various problems with Conservapedia's goals and practices.
Personal tools