Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trekie9001 (Talk | contribs) at 20:06, March 28, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

British English

NO LONGER BANNED

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak


General questions

I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--AmesG 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--Aschlafly 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Authoritative Source

I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this talk page. Tmtoulouse 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--Aschlafly 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --Mtur 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? Tmtoulouse 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--Aschlafly 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Original research

Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --Sid 3050 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. Tmtoulouse 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --Sid 3050 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--Aschlafly 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --Sid 3050 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the George Hammond's of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. Tmtoulouse 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--Aschlafly 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --Hojimachongtalk 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --Charliemc86 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)
Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even have a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --Sid 3050 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --Charliemc86 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --Sid 3050 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --Charliemc86 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in Bias in Wikipedia but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--Aschlafly 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --Charliemc86 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)
Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--Aschlafly 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [1] --Charliemc86 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)
OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. Wikipedia has no rule against gossip. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it stated - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --Mtur 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --Charliemc86 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)
Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--Aschlafly 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --Charliemc86 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)
Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--Aschlafly 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --Sid 3050 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --Interiot 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.Palmd001 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference. If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the Scientology article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [2] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. Terryeo 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this discussion. Tmtoulouse 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --Charliemc86 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant internal scrutiny from a large population of editors. Myk 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --Sid 3050 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like debate topics, let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --Interiot 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--Aschlafly 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. Mathmo 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)


I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. Palmd001 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Bias

7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts... - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --JamesK 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No, we don't.--Aschlafly 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --JamesK 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --Zerba 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: Alger Hiss. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --Charliemc86 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the definition. --trekie9001 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Neutral? Censorship?

"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is Sex. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on Intercourse. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. O2mcgovem 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--Zerba 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. Godman 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures (Economics Lectures, World History Lectures)? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' original reporting policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --Interiot 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. Godman 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Name Change

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.IMFromKathlene 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Neutral to the facts?

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.Palmd001 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Restrictions

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --Cgday 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia&oldid=70782"