Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This is a debate page, not an article.
Opinions are welcome. Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.


Contents

With Unique Style, Conservative Cooperation and Majority Religion Rule

I believe that Conservapedia has an important task. I am also convinced that if Conservapedia can get past its Wikitrauma (I too left Wikipedia)and develop its own intelligent identity and be FOR something unique and positive it will succeed. Let me go into detail. I would like to share an important vision as to what Conservapedia could be, what niche it could fill in today's world.

Firstly, in many modern societies today people are being divided into at least two camps- those who have some kind of strong ethic (be it religiously oriented or simply the strong voice of an internal "parent") and those without a strong ethic and often without any notable self-discipline. Those who tend to strive toward the honourable, the good, the respectful and the decent or ethical need to be able to find information which helps them to do this. And they need to find other like-minded people to share ideas with. In essence, the particular religion (or lack thereof) is not a major issue here. That those who are conservative and who support conservative ideals tend to have a strong sense of order, decency and self-discipline is more than just a curiosity; it is the very force or common denominator which will ultimately unite a Conservapedia community.

Secondly, like any country, Conservapedia must adopt a policy for freedom of religion. I have often posited that our current system of freedom of religion collapses in like a house of cards on its own absurdity. Attempting to accommodate all religions in absurdum does not work. There is another model which may be more realistic and still allow everyone the right to basic freedom to believe and worship as they choose. There must be a host religion or primary religion and guest religions or secondary religions. Here in Conservapedia, the host religion is Christianity. It is, from what I can tell, the majority religion. That religion sets the tone and has the final say about the general identity of Conservapedia. Where there is a rare conflict of interest between my secondary religion and the primary religion, the interests of my religion (excluding my right to practise my own religion personally) give way to the interests of the primary religion.

This has implications for articles on various religions here in Conservapedia. I propose that when we write an article about a religion, that any controversies or criticisms be included in a separate article, always outside of the main descriptive article about the religion in question. In the case of the ongoing LDS articles (I write this because there was a request for a polygamy article in connection with the LDS articles), there would be an LDS portal with the regular article about the religion and its founder and notable persons. Then any controversy about the religion would be put into a separate article entitled "Criticisms of the LDS faith". If there is a controvery with Joseph Smith (for instance) then it would either be a separate article or located toward the end of the main article in a section called "Controversy". The point of departure should be: "If a member of that religion were to seek information about his or her own religion from Conservapedia, what would their experience be?". The person could choose from the articles in the portal and would be able to readily identify articles in which their religion is criticized from the vantage point of mainstream Christianity which also has a right on Conservapedia to criticize.

Thirdly, we should have something physically unique to offer readers. This would include, in my opinion, an easy to read style or format that is different from Wikipedia, whether it be simpler structure for articles, fonts and colours that are easier on the eye, logical structure of articles which is psychologically proven to enhance the reading experience and learning. By developing logical and intelligent rules and styles and by providing a reading experience that is more organized and simple than Wikipedia, I believe we could create an important advantage.

Fourthly, conservative cooperation is the only factor that will keep Conservapedia afloat. I can presently identify the following major client groups which (if we can get along) would push Conservapedia into the future: educated mainstream Christians, LDS (mormons), politically conservative Jews, secular classical conservatives. If we can make the "qualified freedom of religion" I write of above work, I think we will have a firm base to build upon in this conservative cooperation. And the more cooperation there is, the better the content and the wider use of that content among the various communities who trust Conservapedia.

Let me throw in another idea, before I stop. Conservapedia is about learning and it is about the wholesome and trustworthy. Libraries, including the Library of Congress and media such as the Christian networks and BYU TV would be easily attracted by special projects presented now and then by Conservapedia. One such project could be a Veterans' Biographical Memory portal of articles on Conservapedia. Another would be a Head Start in Ethical Learning portal of articles about child rearing and teaching ethics as early as possible. This information in simple form would surely be invaluable to many parents in today's society. Each of these projects would increase both the publicity and relevance of Conservapedia.

Most of us have left the Wikipedia community, because we do not share the values of many Wikipedians. We are a people of strong ethics, a people who strive torward the decent, the noble, the wholesome and respectable. That is a remarkable strength, in my opinion. Let's turn our glance aware from Wikipedia and toward a future where we have something to offer which is uniquely ours and badly needed in today's world. --ExFin 17:51, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia is extremely biased. As a graduate of Bible college and now taking online courses through a state institution, bias is seen moreso in liberal communities towards religion than the other way around. I think Conservapedia can indeed succeed. However, more articles in science and history are needed. If you want students to come to your site, you must provide them with the charts and information that they need where they will come to you instead of Wikipedia. I like the fact that scholars are welcome to this site. Buff up Conservapedia and they will come.

Possibly

I'm new to Conservapedia. From my perspective, too much time is spent at present debating the "controversial" articles (Creationism, Abortion, etc) and too little time is spent making a great number of the more mundane articles authoritative. I've flicked through 20-30 articles (free time can be a good thing!) using the Random Page function and it saddened me that many of them are one or two lines long with no proper references or citations. What use is any encyclopedia if it goes out of its way to offer a particular perspective at the expense of containing good factual articles about, well, everything that might be useful to the home schooled or the intellectually curious?

I'd like to see something like this succeed - from an educational perspective it would be a credit to all involved. But, in my opinion, unless time and effort are spent on ALL articles, not just the emotive ones, it will never be functional in the way it deserves to be.

I've made a few scattergun edits so far (mythology and random trivia are my strong points) but there are a whole host of topics that should be informative that clearly no real time has been spent on.

I'll judge Conservapedia to be a success when I see people linking to articles as a source of facts about, well, anything and everything. Whilst people are only interested in certain controversial topics, it will only ever be a limited viewpoint, not an encyclopedia.

Let's face it, people should be able to look at this site as having well written articles on, oh, I don't know (thinks of random things), hamsters, walnut trees and the production of rubber byproducts, not just a select few articles relating to purely Conservative interests. Otherwise, it's not an encyclopedia, it's purely propaganda. Of which the internet already has plenty...--Fingermouse 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll accept your well-phrased challenge. I've noticed the stub problem myself.
As far as I know, the only forbidden subjects on Conservapedia are those that might primarily appeal to a prurient interest--about which, I trust nothing further need be said.
I agree with Fingermouse; however, having started as a Wikipedia reader, then editing Wikipedia as a minor hobby, then getting frustrated and coming here, unfortunately I find myself just adding stubby material myself. Npov2 17:35, 13 January 2008 (EST)
What sort of mythology are you strong in? Classical? Nordic? Chinese?--TerryHTalk 20:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say my main strengths are in Classical mythology in addition to the myths and folklore of the British Isles. That's what you get growing up in what is historically known as "the witches county" - some fascinating history there. And yes, I'd like to start filling out more of the "stub" articles as I come across them. The Random Page function is a real bonus. --Fingermouse 20:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia's main challenge is reaching critical mass. Pick a topic at random, and in nearly all cases, CP will not have any information about it. That just sends people elsewhere. Wikipedia certainly had the same problem at first, but had the advantage of attracting academics of all kinds with a devotion to its mission: open-source information. They didn't care about this religion or that political philosophy, they just believed in an idea that inherently bred content (most of it factual... let's be honest: a WP article about, say, fruit bats will in fact tell you what they look like, where they live, etc). CP's (nonexisting) article... doesn't. If I were setting out to create something like Wikipedia, but with a conservative agenda to it, I'd start by taking advantage of what all those Wikipedians hath wrought. I'd copy the whole thing (as allowed by the GFDL), fork it, and get rid of all the things that are anathema to what CP is trying accomplish. Delete the sex info, excise the liberal perspective, add the ministry that WP won't allow, etc. and present the result as an example of what WP would be if a conservative POV could be enforced. Yes, that would require keeping CP licensed under the GFDL, which would make the information in it available to others to copy... but what would be the harm in that? Wouldn't you like to see Answers.com mirroring CP articles instead of WP articles? Some might argue that the content in WP could never be redeemed... but that's what a certain Adversary once said to the Creator, the Messiah, and the Redeemeer about mankind. - JasonAQuest 23:48, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I have questioned in the past, and still question, the emphasis on "concise". The debates over "liberal" and "conservative" really hit a very small area of what an encyclopedia should cover. I question the political slant pushed on those areas, but I readily acknowledge my own bias in that area. Even if I was a YECist, and a fundamentalist Christian, plus a die-hard conservative, I would not be using Conservapedia to find actual information, I would be using Wikipedia. I use WP in a sensible way, i.e. I realize its flaws and take its entries with a degree of wariness, but I use the same techniques with the Britannica or any other encyclopedia.
What WP provides, and CP currently does not, is in-depth coverage of a broad range of topics. In the past couple of years I have used WP to find out more about: differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union; rules of Australian Rules Football; how to create a proxy.pac file; background on the Roman general Belisarius and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus; discography of Deep Purple; horror films of Universal and Hammer studios. These were all topics in which I had a surface knowledge, but wanted to know more.
If CP continues a focus on "concise", it will never be a place where I would look up information on the above topics, as I already have a level of knowledge of them that CP would provide. I want depth. Number of topics is very much related to the "critical mass" idea that JasonAQuest mentioned above, but depth of topic requires a change in focus. Until then, CP will remain a YEC/Homeschool/Christian Conservative blog, with a desk encyclopedia attached. Boomcoach 09:54, 19 December 2007 (EST)
All of that is indeed the difference between WP, and CP. However, CP is targetting something other than "expansive knowledge" about things like Pop Culture, and such. For instance, never expect to see an article on "Insane Clown Possé" on this site... it just would not fit the requirement to stay and always remain family-friendly. This naturally limits the topics that could be covered by CP, but not a real concern, as CP isn't about covering them. CP, as I see it, is not really intended to supply deep knowledge, but rather simply surface knowledge, unless the issue is, for instance, about something of great importance to conservative teachers, or students. They will expound upon the information, and create more detail about the topics that conservatives support, rather than anything and just about everything that the anarchic mob at Wikipedia covers. --Puellanivis 14:11, 19 December 2007 (EST)
What of the items that I mentioned looking up, with the possible exeption of Deep Purple, would be inappropriate topics for CP? I am not arguing the number of topics covered by CP, I am talking about the depth of information. So far, in bouncing around CP for a while, I have come across few articles that had more depth than I would have known on my own. Some, perhaps, in areas that I am less aware of, but even in those, the amount of information isn't enough to be satisfying. If I actually want to know something abouta subject, and am going to look it up, I am rarely going to be happy with one or two paragraphs. You talk of "surface knowledge", if that is the case, then who, outside of elementary or junior high age people are going to use it for information? Boomcoach 14:47, 19 December 2007 (EST)
You seem to already have answered your own question. Conservapedia is oriented for young learners. I will however address each topic you intended to mention: differences between Rugby League and Rugby Union (Rugby is not widely played in the United States) rules of Australian Rules Football (It covering Australia, not American issues); how to create a proxy.pac file (this is very deep and technical computer science, it is really not important to many who use CP as a resource); background on the Roman general Belisarius (Roman history is a distinguished study due to Latin having been a sign of distinction. These articles however do not expand themselves, people need contribue) and the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus (Sweden is not America); discography of Deep Purple (I have no idea who this is, but it is obviously pop culture); horror films of Universal and Hammer studios ("horror" you do understand that many Christians object to Halloween by its promotion of horror) --Puellanivis 14:55, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Perhaps Conservapedia needs to make its goal of remaining juvenile and isolationist more clear, so people can stop expecting it to be otherwise. - JasonAQuest 23:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)

<undent>I have some ideas to help it succeed. The management may contact me if they want to find out more. However, we do have a great number of problems, including:

  1. Conservatives have families and are probably able to edit less than the libtards at wikipedia.
  2. Libtards at other wikis disrupting progress here
  3. Paranoia on vandalism or subtle vandalism driving good meaning editors away.

Anyway, just some of the problems, all surmountable if desired. FightPerniciousSwarm 23:36, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Don't you think that the liberal tendency toward substance abuse and promiscuous sex detract from their ability to spend time on Wikipedia? - JasonAQuest 15:49, 5 January 2008 (EST)

No

No, considering that Wikipedia (considered by many to be very neutral) appeals to a greater audience than Conservapedia currently does, but they both serve the same function. THerlevi

Wikipedia has heavy liberal bias, meaning that CP appeals to people who want a more open minded view RichardKerry 16:01, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

Of course not! Anyone who thinks it will is either a paranoid naive liberal or one of the kooky creationists writeing the handful of articles posted in this project. -- Jirt 10:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Because it is quite frankly turning out to be just as liberal as Wikipedia. --Luke-Jr 14:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I will agree with this because it appears the editing process seems to be slanted towards removing anything that could be considered part of the conservative ideology. Perhaps this could be an effort by liberal subjugators to undermine the integrity of what is supposed to be a conservative knowledge base. --BillOReillyFan
No it is not as liberal as Wiki yet. ALL Wiki articals are up for editing while Conservapedia has blocked some of the most highly debated ones --Ampasand 11:32 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)
And as we all know, the best way to promote accuracy of information is to completely block all alternate thinking on any given subject. Conservapedia has already failed because in many cases it has allowed ideology to trump all other considerations. Apparantly to be a Conservapedia conservative you must be ethnocentric, Christian, and a YEC. Those of us who don't fit this mold are suspect. Wikipedia may have its own issues, but it has a far more effective dispute resolution system than Conservapedia, and the existence of many voices does tend to move towards an NPOV in many cases. Stile4aly 14:10, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Not until you reject NeoCon Republicanism and adopt the ideals of Pat Buchanan. He is the real Conservative. Not a group of men packaged and delivered by Carl Rove.

Hopefully not. Wouldn't it be better if there was a source of information that didn't have any bias? Instead of putting together conservative biased information, how about putting together FACTUAL information?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gasmonkey (talk)

No.

 ?????

What is Conservapedia's goal exactly? I think it will fail as a replacement to Wikipedia, but it is a nice place to hang out communicate to other people, and have debates like this one.

Double Edge

I'm unsure of Conservapedia's mission. I don't think the person/people who govern it have actually focussed on one.
  • One way Conservapedia could succeed is by downplaying its identity as "Conservative alternative to Wikipedia" and by seriously trying to become a useful information resource for a teenaged audience and for Christian homeschoolers.
  • One way Conservapedia could succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this might be what Aschlafly wants. I don't give it much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.
  • One way Conservapedia could succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.
I do ask Conservapedians to entertain the following question: would they allow teenaged children to use Conservapedia as a schoolwork resource? Now? Ever? Dpbsmith 10:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
To add to this, and I surely hope someone checks this page because I'm not getting a response elsewhere, I see this particular phrase or a variation of it repeated fairly often:
Ah, but there's a key flaw in your comparison, isn't there? We disclose our point-of-view, while Wikipedia denies it. We're not trying to fool anyone. We give the reader the information, and we let the reader decide. Wikipedia, while pretending to be neutral, is actually far more liberal than the American public and its bias results in censorship of vast amounts of information that readers would like to evaluate for themselves, such as biblical authorities.--Aschlafly 23:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)" [1] (emphasis added)
But Conservapedia doesn't disclose its POV. It is called "Conservapedia" and it says on the main page that we "we give full credit to Christianity and America" but that surely does not adequately describe our POV. I see lots of logos on the main page with a cross as a significant focus... is this a Christian encyclopedia? Is this an American encyclopedia? What, exactly, is the POV of Conservapedia? Myk 17:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

"What is Conservapedia's goal exactly?" It's clearly and openly an attempt to supplant Wikipedia with an encyclopedia more palatable to American conservatives, and its bias reflects this. Wikipedia is more suitable for people who - irrespective of their personal politics - understand that the world does not end at the US border. Imitation is, of course, still the sincerest form of flattery. --Beanbag 14:59, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes:

Yes, it can succeed, and it will. Ironically, the (ahem) user who fired the opening shot (see "No" below) suggested the obvious thing: Disable automatic registration and have people register by invitation and application.

CreationWiki does the same thing. They've set up a special "informational" e-mail account and published its address on their Main Page. Anyone wishing to register as an editor must apply for the job either to info@creationwiki.org or directly to its founder, Christopher W. Ashcraft of the Northwest Creation Network. The results have been very good, if I do say so myself (as an editor of CreationWiki as well as an editor here).

Much of BPearl's opening statement is a rant against conservatism generally, and also a contradiction: he maintains that conservatives argue with reality, and then proposes that reality is arrived at by consensus. Sorry, but that's a non sequitur. Of course, liberals always want to deny absolute truth (which is not a trademark, by the way) because their reality is only what feels like a good idea at any given time.

The rest of it is, frankly, a threat: that vandalism will continue unless we--what--shut down? Trust a liberal to write a claim-of-responsibility and an ultimatum that tries to pretend that it's neither. Your average front-liner in Al-Qa'ida would guffaw.

I make two recommendations to the Bureaucrats and the Sysops:

  1. Make registration by invitation and application. Disable automatic registration entirely, and publish contact e-mails on the Main Page, or a page that links directly to it, so that people can apply.
  2. Recruit in more home-school groups, Christian schools, and other private schools.

This place needs a lot of expansion--and also a firm editorial policy that recognizes that certain (ahem) people are never going to appreciate what we have to offer, because they can't even agree with us on what is real and what is unreal. Why, some of them wouldn't even agree that grass was green until they put it to a vote--and then they'd want a stipulation about whether the word grass properly referred only to fescue. St. Augustine, and other traditional lawn grasses, or whether it could refer also to Cannabis sativa.--TerryH 08:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

CreationWiki isn't a serious source of information beyond case studies in logical fallacies and it's peculiar brand of paganism. Nematocyte 06:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Has CreationWiki "succeeded?" At what? In terms of press mentions and Alexa rank, it could be argued that Conservapedia is, at the moment, more successful than CreationWiki. (Incidentally, do people have any theories about the apparent spike in activity that Alexa shows for CreationWiki around the beginning of March?[2]). Dpbsmith 14:45, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I think Conservapedia is already succeeding.... Pandeism 22:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia has made it into the liberal media for so-called "conservative bias". Based on this, I feel that Conservapedia has succeeded at gaining an audience and succeeded at getting rid of liberal bias. Therefore, it is a success. Hundreds of conservatives who are forced to look at liberal news have discovered us, and word of mouth will improve us. All shall go well. SamuelC 16:52, 17 April 2010 (EDT)

No:

Why Conservapedia is Doomed

Ok, first off, full disclosure: I'm a self-declared Liberal. And I have to say that this site manages to some of my worst stereotypes about Conservatives: A bunch of paranoid control-freaks desperately afraid of (in no particular order) Communists, Satan, Terrorists, Liberals, and their own genitals. And this site is exactly what I expected when I first heard about it: a poorly done effort to create an entire alternate reality out of HTML in an attempt to escape the utter hash you (and the clowns you've elected) have made of the REAL world.

Now, assuming any of you made it this far without hitting the 'delete' button, let me explain why.

The central problem with this site is that it wants to be Wikipedia without any of the things that make Wikipedia WORK: most notably, tolerance for dissenting opinions, allowing half-baked articles to sit around until someone comes along and elaborates on them, and a willingness to let people post on topics that may seem irrelevant to The Cause (because Wikipedia doesn't have a Cause--you do). The syspos here are far too trigger-happy, with the obvious chilling effect this has on posters--who wants to spend a half-hour writing an article if there's a good chance a sysop will revert it or delete it for not being sufficiently "Conservatively Correct"?

To me, this looks like a textbook example of the difference between the "Liberal" view, which tries to include as many conflicting viewpoints as possible, as opposed to your apparent desire to find the Truth(tm) ONCE, and then crush any False Opinions that might contaminate it.

As long as you keep thinking like that, this site can't possibly survive. You are going to be flooded by people:

  • Bored teenagers, pranksters and other vandals
  • Well-meaning Liberals (and Moderates, and Reality-Based Conservatives, and Off-the-Mappers) trying to clear a few spoonfuls of what looks to them like a vast ocean of misinformation
  • Irritated Liberals intentionally making you look bad
  • Scary beady-eyed fanatical True Believers unintentionally making you look bad

These problems are not going to go away, unless you give up on letting new people register altogether, which will make this site stagnate and rot.

The other big problem is that you perceive "Liberal Bias" where the problem is that as of late, the Conservative Movement in the USA seems to have a marked anti-Reality bias. I miss Republicans

Well, I hope whichever sysop deletes this at least reads through it, and gets SOMETHING out of it and gets something out of it besides "Blah blah blah I hate Jesus and America". If you can manage that much, I'll call it a win for both of us. (Forgive me for so drastically underestimating your intelligence, but I accidentally glanced at Ann Coulter's column recently.) --BPearl 06:13, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Spot on, this could not have been said any more clearly. --Realitycheck 07:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservapedia is quite a strange concept. The truth is not something that can be saved by ruling out opinions that don't fit into ones concept of reality. It's rather the other way 'round: by ruling out other opinions you can be quite sure you rule out quite a lot of truth. History has shown that many concepts, such as the shape of the earth or the existence of wiches, promoted by religious leaders, had to be revised after being proven false. It took a lot of couragious men and women to challenge widely accepted delusions and replace them with theories based upon facts rather than belief. These challenges are the hart that pumps the blood of truth and wisdom. Ruling out such challenges will keep this project ignorant. It therefore can never be an instrument of exploiting free will, it will be - or at least appear to be - an instrument of intellectual repression. Now, apart from those who wish to remain ignorant, who wants to put his beliefs into such an institute? Mankind will never know the full truth about everything, we will only be able to find little pieces of the Big Puzzle and put them together into a forever changing concept of what truth really is. It's that proces that keep our brains from getting knumb. I don't believe in god, and it is amazing how many people fall from belief when they exploit their natural curiosity. I wish the world will one day be free of religion. Where god begins, thinking ends. An encyclopedia based on the contibutions of those who trade their mental skills for religious ignorance can never be of any value, other than to those who contribute themselves. So maybe Conservapedia cán succeed after all, but only as a database of delusions. TrueBeliever 00:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Conflation, must we? Are you, in short, comparing creationism to the sad misapprehensions about witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts? Or perhaps you are trying to suggest that John T. Scopes was a man of courage. He was not, sir. That trial was rigged. William Jennings Bryan simply did not know what kind of wily confidence trickster he faced in Clarence Darrow. Then again, I am not an attorney; I'll let Andrew talk about lawyers, and what sort of lawyer Clarence Darrow was.
Likewise, I'll let Andrew speak for himself. For my part, I want to this project to be correct, and by that I do not mean politically correct. Beyond a certain point, you have to accept the plain fact that two plus two make four--not five!--TerryH 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I am not going to look up all the persons and events you mentioned. No need to since you don't reply to the argument that someone who creates his own truth can't be taken serious. I have made the equasion, and when you add it all up, there simply is no god. And the historical lies promoted on this project serve no other purpose than to hide logical fallacies of religion. TrueBeliever 20:06, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Behold! When I provide references, the determined, inveterate atheist refuses to consider them. Furthermore, you exaggerate greatly my own importance, when you imply that I have somehow created the Bible. You force me to disclaim that honor, and to remind one and all that only One Person has ever created truth--and that is God, because God is Truth.
If what you have written is how you believe, then may I ask exactly what, in the name of Clarence Darrow, are you doing here?--TerryH 23:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
You don't provide references, you create a lot of smoke to conceal the fact that you don't (want to?) react on the thesis. I think you are the author of lies within this project and call them truth. I don't think you are the author of the Bible. That book itself was written by many contributors, it was not created by god. I am here to asses the importance of this project. I am satisfied. It is quite harmless. TrueBeliever 06:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Again you exaggerate my particular importance. I am merely one of many editors here. I am not an administrator. But while we're on the subject, I answer only to administrators. If you have a complaint against me, then I suggest that you address yourself to one of them. You can take it to Mr. Schlafly himself, if you so desire. He will, of course, ask you to cite your references that say, or imply, that any contribution of mine has been a lie.--TerryH 09:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The Annals of the World

You wrote: It (The Annals of the World). would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone. Now this is clearly a lie, since it can't be of value as it's treatment of ancient history obviously is a fraud. But don't worry, I will not complain about you. This site doesn't need me and I don't need this site. Cheer up TerryH, I don't hold you personally responsible for accidentally ruining lives, just your kind. TrueBeliever 05:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Nice to see that you keep up with the recent changes. So you saw my article on The Annals of the World. Too bad no one invented an emoticon for taking a bow (and I don't think MediaWiki software has any emoticon routines, anyway).
Now I have a few nits to pick with Ussher on the length of the Sojourn in Egypt, and the birthday of Abraham, and certainly his treatment of Egyptian chronology must fall to more recent research by someone who knows what to look for. But in all fairness to Ussher, if he were alive today, then he wouldn't make that mistake with Egyptian chronology.
For his treatment of very ancient (pre-Olympiad) Greek history, he relies on others who have attempted the same thing.
But where has he invented history that did not occur? Where is the "fraud" of which you accuse him?
If you want to talk about fraud, then we can talk about Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Archaeoraptor, and the Ernst Haeckel embryo drawings--all of which are frauds, and everybody except the authors of biology textbooks has always known this. Now why, you ask, is this relevant to a discussion of The Annals? Simply because I know your real claim against The Annals: that it posits a history of the earth that is not much longer than six thousand years, and evolution requires a time frame that is far greater.
And if you want to talk about the ruination of lives, you have that backwards. Atheism and evolutionism have been the chief ruiners of lives here, not Christianity and creationism.--TerryH 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, let's talk about the Piltsown Man. Now that was a case of serious fraud. Mr. Dawson really tried to convince the world that the bones he found were 500 thousand years old. It was quite a shock when it came out they were only 50 thousand years old.
I've never seen an emoticon for taking a bow. And I can't see why you would want to take a bow for me, all I did was looking up a relevant reference, just like I always do. How could I make a statement so pronounced without checking whether there is scientific evidence supporting it? I can't ask you to take notice of something I only believe.
I fail to see how Atheism and evolutionism ruin lives whereas I only have to take a look in the newspaper to read how the first man of the catholic church helps spreading AIDS. How the first man of the United States of America continues a bloody war in the name of (his) god. Anyone, Anyone who puts his faith in a god fails to take proper responsability for his own live and acts at some point.
On the other hand I know that many believers live a healthier live when it concerns their body. There are less smokers and heavy drinkers among believers, most likely they feel that their life is borrowed in a way, they take good care of what they believe is not theirs. (For arguments sake I don't consider the many soldiers who don't hesitate to take someone elses life in name of god).
Haeckel was a crook too. A nice bunch of cons you have dug up. Though Haeckel was a crook only for exaggerating rather then forging.
Well, time's up. Nice talking with you again. Cheerio. TrueBeliever 13:42, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

No. Conservapedia will not succeed. Why? Not only are the 'commandments' biased (which you might expect, given the name of the site), but the sysops sometimes bias that even more by breaking those commandments, or not enforcing them, to bias pages even more towards the conservative point of view. As such, I fail to see how this place can possibly succeed when it breaks even it's own rules, when not doing so doesn't fit into it's own little blinkered world view. Zmidponk 20:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Are you serious? Wikipedia breaks its own rules all the time. Self-inconsistency is not damning, it's an inseparable part of humans. This site speaks to a very specific audience, and if you don't agree with the views here, then go, because you're not going to help anything by pushing an agenda. --Puellanivis 21:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)
My 'agenda' that I am 'pushing' is that, if Conservapedia sees fit to make rules, and go so far as to call them 'commandments', then it should abide by those rules - even when doing so does not agree with the sysops' preconceived notions and ideas. If it fails do so, especally when this happens so flagrantly, it cannot call itself an 'encyclopedia', of any kind, far less 'The Trustworthy Encyclopedia'. If Wikipedia has also broken it's own rules (which it may have, but I would have to see this for myself), so what? Never heard the expression, 'two wrongs don't make a right'? Zmidponk 22:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)
The statement was made not to state that "two wrongs make a right", but rather that no organization, no group of people, no anyone will ever not break their own rules. (Except God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they're all infallable perfection.) The idea here is not to make up rules, and then hit people over the head with it. The idea is to make an encyclopedia with a conservative bias (Conservapedia's undeniably stated goal). Wikipedia breaks its own rules anytime it would make Wikipedia "better", see their article "WP:Ignore all rules" for an example of it being policy. In the same way, if rules need to be broken by the admins and sysops in order to keep Conservapedia conservative, then GOOD! Go do it! The goal is to make the encyclopedia conservative, not to pander to some liberal agenda that Conservapedia needs to be perfect (which it can't be because only God is perfect.) So, seriously. If you're not on the boat then go use Wikipedia, they'll allow you to advance your agenda there. --Puellanivis 22:30, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Note how I put 'agenda' and 'pushing' in quotes? That's because I have no agenda to push. Only you seem to think I do. You seem to suggest they only break the rules to make this place 'more conservative'. Well, I'll take an example. The page on Jesus. At one point, the page began by stating that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God. It has been changed, more than once, to 'Jesus Christ is the only Son of God' by sysops. That is in clear breach of commandment 5 - 'do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry', as they are deleting the FACT that Christians believe this to be true and replacing it with the OPINION that it is definitely true. This has nothing whatsoever to do with making it more conservative, and everything to do with making it more Christian fundamentalist. Whilst many conservatives are Christian, not all are, and, indeed, most Christians can tell the difference between verifiable fact and something that is opinion - even if it happens to be an opinion they share, and have an unshakeable belief they're right to believe. Zmidponk 22:57, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Dude, there's a book called "The Bible", and around these parts it's undeniably true. You don't have to say "Christians believe..." because this site has the Bible as an authoritative source. If you can't accept the Bible as a given truth, then you're not going to do well here at all. --Puellanivis 23:13, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Unless you can provide absolute, conclusive proof that the Bible is true, then stating anything as fact that only has the Bible as a source is opinion, not fact. The Bible MAY be true, it may not be, I don't know - and neither do you. You may fervently believe it's true, but, unless you have verifiable evidence of this, that is only your belief and opinion, not fact. Zmidponk 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Also, you're pushing an agenda. That science trumps the truth in the Bible. And you're attempting to push that believe on the viewers and contributors of this site. --Puellanivis 23:20, 18 December 2007 (EST)
No, this site is pushing an agenda - that the Bible is true and unquestionable, and dressing that up as 'conservatism'. It's not. It's fundamentalist Christianity. I'm merely pointing out that this is the case. Zmidponk 23:27, 18 December 2007 (EST)
So what is conservativism? Most conservatives have a respect for God and religious traditions and acknowledge the role of church in the lives of our founding fathers and through the history of our nation. Remove that from conservativism and it is unclear what is remaining or how unifying it is. Cutting taxes? Generally speaking historically there is a bit more. Learn together 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Read the page on 'Conservative' on this very site, and you get your answer - 'a conservative is one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue.' Incidentally, I note that you say 'most conservatives', not 'all conservatives', so even you must agree that not all conservatives are Christian. Even if they were, not all Christians agree that the Bible is LITERALLY true, like this site seems to think it is - some think some of the things in the Bible are God speaking in simile or metaphor. Zmidponk 09:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, come to think of it - it is also perfectly possible to have respect for religious traditions and acknowledge the role of the church in the lives of our founding fathers without necessarily following those same traditions for religious reasons or the same religion yourself. Therefore it is perfectly possible to even follow that part of this particular brand of 'conservatism' without being Christian. Zmidponk 09:31, 19 December 2007 (EST)
I agree. Even for those conservatives who have a deep respect for the Bible and religious tradition, not all will have a personal knowledge of Christianity. But then that shouldn't exactly cause a conflict. I'm not Catholic, but I have helped to organize and put Catholic information into Conservapedia -- and I was pleased to do so. Perhaps you should concentrate on beginning to make useful entries yourself. As it stands now, you are coming across as someone arguing what a conservative is and trying to put a wedge when you yourself only know conservatism by looking at it from a distance as a foreign entity. True? If not, start contributing -- Thanks Learn together 14:25, 19 December 2007 (EST)
I have no problem putting Catholic information into sites like conservapedia, wikipedia, or anywhere else. However, if the site claims to be a 'neutral to the facts' encyclopedia, like this one does, then such information should be put in as exactly what it is - what Catholics believe to be true, in much a similar way as what Protestants believe should be put in as what Protestants believe to be true, what Muslims believe should be put in as what Muslims believe to be true, what Sikhs believe should be put in as what Sikhs believe to be true, etc, etc, etc. Here, Christian beliefs are being put in as fact, due to it being told in the Bible as fact, and any attempt to correct this is deleted or reverted. Well, sorry, that shows this site is NOT a conservative encyclopedia - it is a fundamentalist Christian one. I would have no problem with this if this site claimed to be a fundamentalist Christian site, but, in fact, it does not - it does not state ANYWHERE that this is the case, and you only actually realise it is when you dig into the histories of some of the pages or look at a few of the talk pages. As such, this site deceives anyone who so much as stumbles across it. As for contributing, well, I feel I could contribute quite a bit. Unfortunately, the pages where I could contribute effectively appear to be locked. Zmidponk 15:23, 19 December 2007 (EST)
If you choose to fixate on the few articles that are blocked, then you are probably correct that this site is not for you. You may find in going beyond that starting standard that most of CP does not specifically discuss religion and there is ample room for contribution. Peace to you. Learn together 16:21, 19 December 2007 (EST)

The fact that you reject the Bible as truth, shows that you have no meaningful comment to give on this site... now, if only I could block. --Puellanivis 23:44, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Well, unless this site changes to 'christianfundamentalopedia.com', then the fact I do not accept the Bible as absolute proof without evidence is completely irrelevant, quite frankly. Or should be, anyway. Zmidponk 23:49, 18 December 2007 (EST)
The name of the site is irrelevant. Unless wikipedia changes it's name to "ifyoudontlikesciencegoawayapedia" then Conservapedia would consider changing their name. --Puellanivis 23:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Well, you equated my belief or lack of belief in the Bible to my ability to give meaningful comment on this site - which, by it's name, is a 'conservative wikipedia'. For your point to be relevant, this site would need to be a 'Christian fundamentalist wikipedia' instead, and thus should change it's name. So which is it - is it relevant, or not? Zmidponk 00:01, 19 December 2007 (EST)
I can block, but we don't do it for debate discussions. It's expected not everyone is going to embrace the overall Conservapedia value structure, and we understand that. We just hope that people can respect our right to exist and present opinions that are generally shunned or not allowed on other sites and we welcome anyone who wants to make constructive contributions. Interestingly, if we were as bad as some claim, we wouldn't have these debate pages to begin with. Learn together 00:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)

When liberals spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success

I remember when FOX News was mocked because it wouldn't make it. I doubt anyone at CNN or MSNBC is laughing now. Everwill 07:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

You are exactly right.Bohdan 23:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've changed my mind. In it's present incarnation, this idea is doomed. Everwill 10:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

When there are twenty topics in the Scientific Debates section, and eight of them mention God or the Bible in the title, that is not a sign that this place will be any kind of success except for people who imagine the truth is whatever they want it to be. Truth is a double-edged sword for conservatives and liberals alike, and even scientists who are believers should know the difference between a laboratory and a church. --Beanbag 20:35, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Religion is the most important thing in many people's lives. To some, it trumps everything else, even science. You're taking the wrong approach by trying to push your liberal agenda. Trying to prove your point by liberal "science" won't ever work here, because the audience does not want to hear it at all. --Puellanivis 21:51, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I don't know if you intended it, but that actually sounded sort of sarcastic... Anyway, I agree with you in respect to your last point. I don't think this site will move beyond its target audience (American Conservative Christians, primarily YEC), but that audience is plenty large for it to gain a considerable following. Feebasfactor 22:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Nope no sarcasm at all, honest and earnest belief. --Puellanivis 22:07, 18 December 2007 (EST)

The heading for this section can easily be turned around: "When conservatives spend time refuting an idea ... it's already a success." Which major ideas do conservatives then "make a success" by trying to refute? Evolution? Global Warming? Public education? Other religions? An entire branch of Christian theology, Apologetics, exists to refute other religions or false doctrines. So before throwing around such an assertion, it might be useful to see it as a double-edged sword. Sometimes, as in scientific discourse, refutations are simply that. They point out weaknesses of existing research, usually by offering more recent research that refutes. Positing and refuting comprise the core of debate, and BOTH (or all) sides should be expected to posit and refute.

"There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde

From a glance at (the admittedly-liberally-biased) GoogleNews, it would appear that for the past week, nobody has had anything whatsoever to say about Conservapedia. There is precisely one minor and sarcastic reference to Conservapedia in all of the last weeks news, worldwide.

I can only deduce from this that Conservapedia has already failed. This site could hardly be more dead if God had struck it down himself. --Jeremiah4-22 20:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh come on, it's at least a very active de-vandalization exercise. And a great place to practice technical writing, since WP is a bit, well, full of already-written articles. Human 19:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Who cares what agenda the liberal news people are putting out there. Of course it's not covered by liberal news, because this place is what liberals fear. They will not talk about it, because they do not want to give it any credibility. The point you were trying to make it fundamentally flawed in that Conservapedia doesn't care what the liberally agendaed media say. --Puellanivis 21:54, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, I think you'll find, after a good look around this place, it actually does a fairly good job of 'not giving it any credibility' all by itself. There are quite a few parts that fit the worst stereotypes of conservatism. Zmidponk 22:25, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I have taken a good look around. And it gives itself credibility to the audience that it targets, conservatives. The wackiness that you're using "conservatism" as if it were immediately a bad thing is completely stupid. I though liberals were supposed to be smarter than conservatives? Apparently, you're not because you refuse to believe any evidence presented by this site. You start immediately with a bias that this place is bad, simply because it's "conservative". God give me strength... you need some help. --Puellanivis 22:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Actually, I did not come here with a view that this place is bad because it's conservative. Having a look round this place gave me that view. Zmidponk 23:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)
You obviously cannot accept that Conservapedia considers the Bible as infallably true. If you cannot take accept that in any way, then leave, you're not welcome here. --Puellanivis 23:52, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I would have no problem accepting that Conservapedia accepted the Bible as infallibly true - if it stated, clearly, that it was a fundamentalist Christian encyclopedia, not a conservative one. Currently, it seems to be trying to dress up fundamentalist Christian ideals and beliefs as 'conservatism', and presenting them as facts in an encyclopedic form, which I have an objection to because of it's deceitfulness. Zmidponk 00:08, 19 December 2007 (EST)

You have the most unusual way of showing that you didn't believe that this place is bad right off the start. You reject the conservative, christian ideals, and because of that, you reject the authorities, and sources used on this site. It is not my problem, nor is it anyone's problem here that you cannot accept it. Wikipedia doesn't accept the Bible as truth for anything but articles specifically about the Bible, and Christianity. They reject the truth presented by the Bible, and that's where they fail for the contributors of this site. By ignoring the Bible, they ignore truth. Just like you claim conservatives ignore science. --Puellanivis 23:18, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Actually, I reject the sources used on this site because...well...they're not very good. From what I've seen, it's not uncommon for the 'source' to be a single quote taken from a larger passage that diametrically opposes the editor's claims, or a 'source' that is actually giving second or third-hand information, or a 'source' that successfully manages to actually prove itself wrong, or a 'source' that simply makes claims that are not true, and fairly easily proven as such. Wikipedia does not accept the Bible as truth for anything because, to date, there isn't verifiable evidence that the more fantastical things in it are true. Oh, and I do not claim conservatives ignore science - just some of them, including, it seems, many of the ones here. Zmidponk 23:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)
I don't need to debate this any longer. Obviously reject the Bible as truth, because you're so closed-minded that you can't accept that as an axiom, a Christian should believe that the Bible is true. That means, I don't have to prove that it's true, because it just is. --Puellanivis 23:42, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Which is more closed-minded? That it is possible that the Bible is true, but there is no verifiable proof it is, or that it is utterly impossible for the Bible not to be true? Zmidponk 23:46, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Personal tools