Do we really want to "invite" school-age students to this site?
It seems like "highly provocative" is a euphemism for racist hate-speech. How can any responsible person condone inviting impressionable kids to visit the site, as in "Anyone who wishes to investigate Metapedia for himself is invited to do so". I'm taking this line out, and anyone who feels it's appropriate for kids to visit a hate site needs to justify it here before reverting. --DinsdaleP 15:33, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, I think people should be informed (read: warned) about this site because it's racism and Holocaust Denial, disguised as "just another wiki encyclopedia". However, I'm somewhat confused why our article starts out so extremely tame and only sorta-kinda points out the real identity of this site later on. The intro should really say that this is a site that pushes historical revisionism and racism.
- And I completely agree that we shouldn't encourage people to visit this site. At all. What would parents say if they discovered that their children visited a racist site? And what would they say if they were told that THIS site encouraged their kids to do so?
- I would also ask somebody with Upload rights to scrub the URL from the screenshots. It's silly to say that linking to the site is forbidden when the URL is plainly visible in apparently all images of the gallery. --DirkB 15:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- What's ridiculous is that certain wikis are forbidden to be mentioned or linked to from CP because they express non-conservative views while claiming to be rational, and you don't see articles about them with screen captures to show why it's inappropriate. Yet somehow, it's okay to devote an article full of euphemisms and screen captures with the URL to a hate-speech wiki that disguises itself as "alternative". I wonder just who from "the administration" is willing is willing to put their names on the record as being for the not-so-subtle promotion of this site on CP. --DinsdaleP 15:59, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm willing to Assume Good Faith for the moment, but when comparing this to some other extremely bold "We expose the truth!" articles (like the ones about Obama, Wikipedia, etc.), it does look "carefully worded".
- The article does need work, even when you ignore these issues. I'll try to aid in the clean-up without being overly "controversial". --DirkB 16:05, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- I'm in two minds. On the one hand it's an nasty, deceitful little site. It tries to look reasoned and rational, slips in little insuations, then little half truths, then full blown Nazi lies. On the other hand: looking at this site and reviewing just how it tries to go about it's foul purpose would be a very good exercise to innoculate students against some of the more insidious deceit that's put there. Anyway I think the article should either be deleted (no great loss!) or it should "tell it how it is" (I've put something in to that effect) --Toffeeman 17:21, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- I appreciate your point, but then why aren't there pages on CP devoted to constructively analyzing and refuting other websites and wikis that represent differing views with regard to atheism, liberal values, pro-choice policies, etc.
- At the risk of earning a block, I'll just come out and say it - there seems to be an unusual effort being made with this article, as opposed on the one for Stormfront, for instance, to treat it like it simply presents "alternative" views instead of being a hate site, and then inviting the young readers of Conservapedia to visit it themselves! We don't need hate sites to be marketed to impressionable young minds here. --DinsdaleP 18:48, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm sure that TerryH didn't intend the "invitation" to be an encouragement for children to visit Metapedia. Rather, it was saying that people needn't just take Conservapedia's word for it, but can check the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, despite that good intention, it wasn't worded the best, and I support its removal. Philip J. Rayment 23:22, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- This kinda reminds me of one of the few Futurama episodes I actually watched (I still want to watch them all, but time never happens to be on my side, somehow):
- Leela: [hands Fry a note] This. You for this.
- Fry: Thanks. [blows nose on note, then throws it in fireplace]
- Leela: No! [reaches into fire] Ow! Fire hot!
- Professor Hubert Farnsworth: The professy will help. [reaches into fire] Ahh! Fire indeed hot!
- (Nooooo! Not the punishment stick! It's all in good fun!)
- I guess your assumption about Terry's intention is correct, but I think in this case, it really is better not to encourage people. Those who really want to find out more will know how to use Google, so we don't have to give the rest silly ideas. Not even to mention what might happen if people use school/work computers to follow "our suggestion"...
- And a possible alternative to "Just take our word" would be to find more sources to back our claims. The article already has a few, but I guess we can dig out more and then spread them more evenly. We'll figure something out :) --DirkB 23:37, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
I'm not accusing TerryH of targeting children directly, but this wiki was founded by and (originally) for homeschoolers as a trustworthy resource. Why the need, then to talk this site up so much compared to the article here on StormFront? Was there really a need for multiple screen captures so that the readers here can absorb and become curious about some of the content there? I agree that we should not stick our heads in the sand, and should stand up to oppose sites like this, but then why not feature the KKK site here and include screen captures, or do the same for the dreaded r-wiki and show screens from there to explain why it's dismissed here? I'm sorry, but unless this is trimmed to the level given Stormfront, I can't help but feel that the real intent was to get people curious about the "alternate" views expressed there, provide samples, and encourage direct visits. This is not what the parents of homeschooled kids would expect from a trustworthy encyclopedia. --DinsdaleP 11:42, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
- My understanding from TerryH was that the screenshots were to provide evidence in support of the claims, so that no-one could claim that Conservapedia has misrepresented Metapedia. I can also see you point of view, though. Philip J. Rayment 06:09, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
I'd like to remove or at least trim the two-point disclaimer for the Gallery because it strikes me as trivial. However, I'm waiting for Green Light From Above because it's not urgent and because there might be a deeper meaning behind it.
The first point simply says that these screenshots are JPEGs (*gasp*), and the second point seems to be senseless since Metapedia doesn't allow IP editing anyway, so there shouldn't be any IP info that had to be scrubbed. However, I admit that I didn't scan all screenshots in greater detail, so please correct me if I'm wrong. --DirkB 16:30, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- I agree that the reference to JPEGs is not necessary. As for the second point, it's clear that TerryH has deleted something (presumably an IP address), although I don't understand how it came to be there. The "log in" link shows that he was not logged in, but when I look at the site, in both IE and Firefox, both on Windows, no IP shows up there. So I don't know why it did for TerryH. Given that it did, however, I don't have a problem with that particular disclaimer point. Philip J. Rayment 23:16, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
- Oh, now I see it. I can explain that one, actually. The IP shows up only under certain conditions: Go to the site (or any other wiki you're not logged in to, from what I know) and click on the "Log in" link (or any link that leads to the "Login required to edit" screen, such as a redlink). From that moment on, until you close the tab/window, the IP will be displayed there. As long as you're a nice lurker and never try to log in or hit redlinks, you won't see your IP up there. --DirkB 23:29, 6 September 2008 (EDT)