14
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 235:
Line 235: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Homosexual Agenda (view source)
Revision as of 14:51, February 22, 2013
, 14:51, February 22, 2013→Conservapedia violates its own commandments.: new section
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)
Also cannot find anything on Hunter Madsen (pen name "Erastes Pill")[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:54, 24 February 2012 (EST)
== Conservapedia violates its own commandments. ==
Substantial portions of the article on "homosexual agenda" violate the conservapedia commandments, but it seems that the administrators are not interested in enforcing the commandments.
I made several edits to this page which either eliminated the presentation of personal opinion as fact or which placed notes that statements were not verifiable and were not accompanied by a citation. I find the article as a whole fairly interesting because whether or not an actual homosexual agenda exists, the concept of a homosexual agenda most definitely exists either as an actual agenda held by gay activists or as a perceived agenda by those who oppose acceptance or expansion of rights.
None of the changes I made changed the fundamental content of the article, but simply attempted to enhance the article by removing or noting items that lacked references to verifiable data or which were expressions of personal opinion (both of which are forbidden by the conservapedia commandments). This was met with immediate reversion of the edits (which is fine) and blocking of my account from making further changes and blocking of the IP address from which I logged in (which is unacceptable). As you can see on the history page, this was done by user Markman.
I understand that a site such as conservapedia is probably subjected to significant attempts at sabotage, but it is unfortunate that the sight has become inhospitable to legitamate attempts to improve the quality of the site by removing mere statements of personal opinion which are un-referenced, un-substantiated, and and un-verifiable.
Conservapedia could have been a great resource, but it has, unfortunately, allowed itself to become nothing more than a site that presents propaganda and opinion as fact in violation of its own commandments.