Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,942
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 53:
Line 53: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Books mentioning Conservapedia: new section
Bad news - our Alexa rating went down 3,272 ranks from April to May, and now we're out of the Top 55,000. I can't tell if this is a decrease in traffic or just other websites increasing or not, but either way, our statistic is out of date. Also, pageviews, time on site, and search engine results are up.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 18:19, 4 May 2017 (EDT)
Bad news - our Alexa rating went down 3,272 ranks from April to May, and now we're out of the Top 55,000. I can't tell if this is a decrease in traffic or just other websites increasing or not, but either way, our statistic is out of date. Also, pageviews, time on site, and search engine results are up.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 18:19, 4 May 2017 (EDT)
:Page views & site time up? I guess we gotta concentrate on quality over quantity right now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 21:59, 4 May 2017 (EDT)
:Page views & site time up? I guess we gotta concentrate on quality over quantity right now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']]</sup> 21:59, 4 May 2017 (EDT)
== Books mentioning Conservapedia ==
These are all excerpts from books, found in Google Books, that mention Conservapedia:
{{cquote|While Wikiality is a humorous and entertaining concept, it does not relate to real world politics. Take, for example, Conservapedia, the online encyclopedia inaugurated by the son of arch-conservative Phyllis Schlafly as a "much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly Anti-Christian and Anti-American. Conservapedia seeks to offer conservative definitions of contested words and terms, from evolution and global warming to dinosaurs and kangaroos. Though such an endeavor, on its face, is patently absurd, the notion behind the site is quite powerful. These are the ''real'' truths, the site proclaims, and the ability now exists for conservatives and Christians to create their own public space where they need not endure the falsities propagated by the Anti-Christian and liberal establishment that have dominated public thought in their ability to define the world. Such a site is the culmination of years of effort to challenge the cultural hegemony of liberal media, government, and academics, and it does so by the establishment and control of language upon which reality is built. Whether effective or not, simply by its existence, the site actively contests the legitimacy of other such locations for the establishment of definitional truth, be it Wikipedia, ''Encyclopedia Britannica'', ''Webster's'', or some other. It challenges its users to question ''all'' such informational resources for their ideological biases before using them.<ref>Jones, Jeffrey P.
''Entertaining Politics: Satiric Television and Political Engagement''. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers: Plymouth, 2010.</ref>}}
{{cquote|Some maintain that Wikipedia's sources should be checked since they are user contributed and potentially biased, which is a good idea; however after they have passed a series of internal "tests" the article reliability grows, although even at this stage there may be a liberal bias. Enter Conservapedia.com (http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia) featuring a conservative encyclopedia, which features excellent articles from my sampling, and I would recommend it over Wikipedia, though its article base isn't as large. (http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page). Just remember that initially posted articles at Wikipedia have not encountered any evaluation. There is often an editor's notation as to any concerns within an article, e.g., "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."<ref>Weldon, John. ''How to Survive the Coming Economic Meltdown''. ATRI Publishing.</ref>}}
{{cquote|In comparison to Wikipedia, Conservapedia defines ... an impressive impact on public thinking and reaction as a cumulative result of collective knowledge.<ref>Costigan, Sean S. and Jake Perry. ''Cyberspaces and Global Affairs''. Routledge: New York, 2012.</ref>}}
Do you think we should include these in some section about Conservapedia's being mentioned in other works, or a section about praise of CP?--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (EDT)