Censorship at Conservapedia
A year ago, I started a discussion about censorship at Conservapedia at your talk page over there which unfortunately got sidetracked by the late TK.
Today, I wanted to return to it, but - alas - your talk page at Conservapedia seems to be protected (why call it a talk page then :-) ? ) (obviously, it works for me now.... )
To summarize, You wrote:
- And please don't think (or say!) that we are engaging in censorship here at Conservapedia, as you guys at Wikipedia do. We do follow Jimbo and Larry's original NPOV policy of "describing all viewpoints fairly". It doesn't require censorship to show that a bad idea is bad. Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.
As an example I quoted wigo3277 of March 2010:
- A new level of dishonesty: After selective archiving the thread Counterexamples to an Old Earth - omitting all contributions of PhilG - ASchlafly is left with talking to a ghost, as a dialogue turned into a monologue.
And here - http://tinyurl.com/cp-cap-001 - is an example of the PhilG's contributions which were censored.
PhilG had protested against JacobB's behavior - and was consequently blocked by him. It is a little bit difficult to get diffs for this kind of abuse, as so many pages are constantly deleted and revisions regularly oversighted at Conservapedia. But I think that I showed that a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth - and therefore am allowed to say that Conservapedia is engaging in censorship.
RonLar 11:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
- Sorry, if "censorship" has been oversighted into oblivion then there is no easy way to check on it. I remain concerned over censorship issues for two reasons:
- I'm against it
- I deplore attempts to falsely paint CP leadership as engaging in it
- Depending on my mood, the order of my concern fluctuates. But for either case, timely notification is important.
- Anyway, if there is some viewpoint that still has not been covered in an article such as Counterexamples to an Old Earth, please let me know. Last time I checked with the project director, I am free to describe all points of view, even those which disagree with Conservative or Christian ideas.
- Note, however, that it is not censorship to refrain from describing an idea as true - as long as we say that X believes Y about Z then we are not censoring their POV. --Ed Poor Talk 12:15, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
- Have a look at Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Receding Moon and Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability of the Solar System . Can you spot the bits which are not there? Answer: the comments of PhilG. As a sysop here at Conservapedia you should have no problems to look these comments up in the history of the original talk page Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth, which was deleted in March 2010.
- Is Conservapedia afraid of showing the arguments for opposing views even on the talk page of an article?
- RonLar 13:38, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
- I'm really curious whether you will answer to this attempt to rightly paint CP leadership as engaging in censorship - or at least in not bothering about it - or whether you shoot the messenger and find a pretext to ignore my example. Perhaps incivility? Though even an uncivil editor may have a point...
- However, you are now informed of an act of censorship and should act according to your concerns. Maybe you could try to revert it? This should be your first action...
- RonLar 08:16, 27 July 2011 (EDT)
- I'd really appreciate a comment sometimes... RonLar 11:28, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
- When answering to the section below, you used the edit comment stalling, but responding. I hope that this holds true for this section, too, and that the stalling phase will sometimes lead to the responding phase....
- RonLar 14:14, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
- Ed says, "timely notification is important."
- Ed, I'm going to begin collecting some of these at Conservapedia talk:Sysop complaint documentation. I'd like to avoid dragging the sysop usernames into those discussions for now, but merely cite instances of potential misuse of sysop tools without it degenerating into personal disputes. This could be helpful in getting sysops to understand their responsibilities more, and avoid misunderstandings with other editors and sysops. Thank you. Rob Smith 15:32, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
- Ed says, "timely notification is important."
So, will it go away if you ignore it?
Probably: I don't think that Rob will be able to pursue this matter. But for the record: I've shown that there is censorship at Conservapedia, you have shown that you don't care much about it (though you say otherwise). RonLar 07:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
- I never said there wasn't: we routinely censor vandalism, profanity, personal attacks, and obscenity.
- What I actually maintain is that I have yet to see a genuine example of political censorship, i.e., removing any reference to an idea or claim merely because it is "liberal". I've asked dozens of times for examples, and to date haven't seen any. But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport. --Ed Poor Talk 16:22, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Since RonLar has been blocked for a month, I'll repost his reply to you (with permission), making a few small tweaks since the original was a RW post that was talking of you in third person.
- [From RonLar]
- Obviously, the diffs are deleted at Conservapedia. That's why I gave you a link to a screenshot http://tinyurl.com/cp-cap-001 for the now deleted http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&curid=95133&diff=760665&oldid=760554
- As this includes a paragraph on Andy's text, you should have no problem to place it correctly in Archive_1#Instability of the Solar System
- And try the following diffs
- Even though they are deleted, they should be accessible for you!
- [/From RonLar]
- These are from March 2010. If there was a problem, it seems that by ignoring it I made it go away (<grin>). Anything more recent than that?
- Judging from your comment (These are from March 2010. If there was a problem, it seems that by ignoring it I made it go away (<grin>). Anything more recent than that? And please remind me what there are examples of. Is it uncivil comments, or antithetical ideas? ) you seem not to have look[ed] into the material, but glanced at it.
- You asked for an example. You were provided with one. You didn't state an expiry date for censorship.
- no, ignoring never makes a problem go away.
- according to my calculations, ca. 24% of all revisions are deleted at Conservapedia (compare this with less than 9% at other wikis, including wikipedia). So, diffs are notoriously hard to get.
- the diffs I provided you with are about antithetical ideas. As far as I can remember, the discussions at the page were all very civil.
- You had another month to look into this matter. Have you done so?
- RobSmith gave you an example of a deletion of an active discussion with another sysop. This was done timely - but there is no sign that you did acted on it for six weeks and counting. Even if you dismiss his example, a timely notification should result in a timely reaction!
RonLar 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
- Which one of these is an example of ideological censorship? I'll need screen shots: I only looked at the first diff, and it didn't show anything: you can't diff a deletion.
- Anyway, if someone is rolling back discussions, they might have a good reason. I've done it myself, when it's trolling or totally off topic. I do it routinely for personal attacks. That's not what this is about, is it?
- I asked for an instance of ideological censorship. If I don't get one by the end of this month, I'm going to stop asking. --Ed Poor Talk 10:54, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail
Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about. So, when an opposing viewpoint which is presented civilly and in detail gets erased, the author blocked and all the diffs deleted, than this is censorship. Wouldn't you agree, Ed?
PhilG was obviously not happy with the statement The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers. in the article Counterexamples to an Old Earth. He argued his case on the talk page, and we could read exchanges like the following:
Now, after JacobB (then sysop) erased any contribution of PhilG to this talkpage, all what is left is:
Censorship? Indeed, it's the removing of any reference to an idea or claim merely because it didn't fit... Ed, again, you are in the privileged to take a closer look for yourself - you only have to look at the deleted entries to Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth, and you will find more examples of this kind of purely ideological censorship. This is a trivial task for a sysop, and not doing so would show an inclination to shut the eyes and to call all is well which I just hope you don't have.
RonLar 15:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)