Talk:"How the Other Half Lives," or, Conservapedia from the Liberal Perspective

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

*watches this page* --Sid 3050 12:46, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep - --Cgday 12:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't expect anything big until the end of the day. But guys, I would appreciate it if you, as liberals on Conservapedia, would contribute paragraphs about how you feel about Conservapedia. I'll integrate them into the final essay.-AmesGyo! 13:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify I'm on the right in the UK but that seems to make me some form of Pinko commie here ;-) --Cgday 13:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I consider myself outside the US political spectrum, but I'm most definitely not "conservative" in the sense that this site pushes. I'll try to add something here later. --Sid 3050 13:05, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
As a liberal as Conservapedia, you live in a constant state of worry; when will Andy choose to block all of the liberals? When will the next RightWolf2 come along and make a fool out of himself? And worse of all, we were told that this was actually going to be an encyclopedia, not a neocon propoganda tool (which it is). --Hojimachongtalk 21:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Its really only the controversial articles that have a conservative bias really. If the article isn't on the top 100 most popular pages list, then it has no bias. However, I'm not sure if thats because no one cares about those pages, or if it's because they are all 2 sentences long. Honestly, the problem that exist here is that no one is USING the site. Everyone is either vandalizing it or caught up in the debate pages. No one, outside of maybe Andy's students, is actually using this site as reference, most of our traffic probably comes from Slashdot, 4chan, Newgrounds and the like. The site is never going to grow when people spend decades discussing whether or not abortion can cause breast cancer, when we don't even have the most basic of articles.--Elamdri 21:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I think the breast cancer article is important because it reveals quite a lot about the actual function of the site. Notice how the only medically qualified person on there is pilloried for "acting outside his expertise" but strangely not one of the sysops wants to explain what it is about their education that allows them to make this determination. It's a very interesting lens to look at the double speak that you fight here. The other thing is it brings to light is that many of the sysops do not seem to understand the function or construction of an ecyclopedia article - a very common answer to question is "well it's obvious to me!" or "it's pretty logical to me!" totally missing the fact that a good article does not rely on something being obvious to the writer but actually being explained to the reader!

That's leaving aside racist articles such as Federal Reserve --Cgday 04:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Federal Reserve is a race?Jaques 05:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not everything I think about this, um, "place", but feel free to check out my comment at Why_do_users,_who_contribute_substantially,_choose_to_leave_this_community? for a carefully worded (so I don't get banned this soon) perspective on one aspect of hanging out here and trying to be helpful. Human 20:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

The "Two" Conservapedias

It is becoming my observation that there are two distinct, and almost hermetically sealed, components to CP. On the one hand, their is is this nice little, slowly growing, collection of information aimed at a roughly teenaged audience. This part is probably 80-90% of the articles. The other part, which I call "Classic Conservapedia", is the articles on sex, religion, and one or two hot-button political topics. These may be a small percentage of the total article titles, but are where 90% of the energy and typing, especially of some sysops, is expended. There is another category, which is the articles on political/historical figures and events that displays a strong conservative and pro-American bias. I am not quite sure where they belong - the title is not "encyclopedia for kids", after all, it's conservapedia, so this perspective is to be expected.

As a really, really far left liberal by the standards of this site, I actually enjoy the work I do on the little "real" articles, especially when other people come along and fix everything I got wrong within minutes. Collaboration is pleasurable even when it is pointless. I am also tempted to develop two lists or directories - one of the articles I termed "classic" above, and another, for different reasons, quoting poor choices of words (i.e., nasty, spiteful, vicious, thoughtless), often on people's talk pages, by various sysops. The first reason is why I bother being here, when I should be researching my article on MPC for WP; the second (the lists) are my mind's reaction, trying to stay sane, to some of the drivel that is splattered all over this site. Human 17:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)