From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ok (Talk | contribs) at 19:48, 30 August 2012. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

I'm a bit confused about the following statement from the about conservapedia page- "When a student handed in her paper using the date-markers “BCE” and "CE” from Wikipedia, Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of Christianity and conservatism."

I am not expressing any opinion whether or not Wikipedia contains bias in general. Conservapedia's bias page defines bias on encyclopedia as follows- "In works describing a potentially controversial topic, bias refers to the tendency of an author who holds a particular viewpoint to express that viewpoint (whether intentionally or subconsciously) in his work."

BCE and CE specifically can be understood to mean before Christian era and Christian era or before Common era and Common era. It is a current academic trend meant to avoid holding a particular viewpoint to express that viewpoint, ie- to avoid bias. The term is meant to specifically avoid suggesting any viewpoint regarding Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion. The above statement thus confuses me. By definition, a lack of bias will endeavor to not lean in any direction, and how that is interpreted as a bias against the achievements of Christianity perplexes me. In actuality, a claim for bias by the usage BCE and CE can be made more so for every other religions, as it signifies using the Christian dating of the calendar, revolving around Jesus' birth, and not any other calendar, such as the Muslim one (which revolves around Mohammed's Higra) or the Jewish one (which revolves around the creation of all of humanity in the Garden of Eden).

I would appreciate a clarification. Thank you.

Where are the claims of bias? The controversial aspects? Even Wikipedia says it has been controversial. --Gert3 09:07, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Cannot edit?

When I view this page the "edit button" isn't there, is this a purposeful measure? I wanted to change ...Conservapedia originally contained mostly history articles, it has grown over two years to be a general reference... because if Conservapedia was launched in 2006 that would make it nearly 5 years old. MaxFletcher 22:07, 14 March 2011 (EDT)

I think that means the page has been 'protected'. Only some of the more senior users (administrators?) have access. You can ask for it to be temporarily unprotected, probably ask ASchlafly. CharlieJ 22:17, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
I think I have already bothered him enough today (I couldn't find the help index despite it being right in the menu!). Hopefully a senior user will see this. MaxFletcher 22:23, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
Hi Max, good catch! I made that change for you: I made it "grown over several years". If there were any other changes you wanted to make, let me know or I'll unlock the article for you. AddisonDM 13:07, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
Thanks Addison! MaxFletcher 15:27, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

Differences with Wikipedia Section

Under this section, it might be helpful to add a wiki link to this page: Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia. One of the better differences, in my opinion, is that Conservapedia allows primary sources while Wikipedia does not. According to Wikipedia, if the liberal media has not mentioned it, then it must not exist. This is the same tactic liberals used when ClimateGate went public; they simply ignored the story and hoped it would disappear.

Secondary sources can be very helpful in explaining a more complex topic, but an encyclopedic approach would be to cite the primary and secondary sources, which Wikipedia does not allow. This means that Wikipedia is a source for less reliable, second-hand citations; unless a page is completely unrelated to politics of any kind, Wikipedia references mostly liberal opinions with a bias view discussing a primary source. Even then, Wikipedia's non-political pages still can't use primary research as a citation. In my opinion, primary sources are more encyclopedic than the opinions of HuffPo writers, MSNBC reporters and the vast liberal media machine. DerekE 21:32, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Wow, that's a superb insight! I added the link as you suggested.--Andy Schlafly 21:55, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Blocked user listed as influential

In the "influential users" list, "JacobB" is still listed even though that user was blocked for inserting false information. Was leaving this user on the list intended or an oversight? CWest 12:41, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

The following was mailed to me by SamHB. JudyJ 14:29, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

I take exception to the suggestion that user JacobB was "blocked for inserting false information". That is not true. Jacob was more knowledgeable about mathematics than everyone here, past or present, put together. He was caught up in some kind of internet password spoofing incident, and the "good guys vs. traitors" mindset kicked in. I believe he was allowed to come back briefly, but he quickly lost interest and moved on to other things. In his case, grad school in mathematics. He never inserted false information. You should show some respect, OK? If his user page showing as a redlink bothers you, why not just restore the page?

Another matter. While I had bitter fights with Terry Koeckritz, I was saddened to learn of his death. I think the existing entry does not show respect the way it should. The phrase "RIP" is used in many ways, from extremely solemn (Requiescat In Pacem) to downright silly and flippant (hanging an "RIP" sign on a computer.) Someone reading his entry wouldn't really know what was intended. They could even conclude that he was simply banned. I would suggest changing the line to something like

  • TK made many substantive contributions since coming to Conservapedia in 2007, and was known for his vigilance against vandals prior to his sudden passing in December, 2010.
I meant no disrespect. I was not the one that made the block; I only joined this site about a week ago. Personally, the red link does not bother me; I did notice it and checked the reason for the block, but I simply wanted to check with the sysops. Even if I did restore the page, it may be deleted again anyway. There has been another instance where I redid something a sysop had undone and I caught some heat for it. I do not wish for that to happen again. Also, as I did not mention anything to do with that second paragraph, I will leave that part alone without replying. CWest 09:40, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Only for Americans?

I read people stating one forum that this site is only accessible to American IPs, with people from other countries complaining that they were not given access, though a Canadian said he did manage to get in. Is this true, or just propaganda? I'm moving to Israel, so I'd still like to be able to access this site.--Pubjabi20 17:57, 23 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservapedia is available worldwide, and you should be able to access this site without difficulty from outside the U.S. Only a small percentage of international, anonymous proxies are blocked. Thanks for your interest.--Andy Schlafly 18:03, 23 July 2012 (EDT)