Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?

4,172 bytes added, 02:15, 27 September 2018
/* Original discussion from UserTalk:Aschlafly */HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://en.wikipedia.org → https://en.wikipedia.org
{{debate}}
 
What exactly is conservapedia?
:In a way, Aschlafly wants to have the best of all worlds. He wants the popularity/fame that comes from having a frequent editor/visitor base, he wants activity, he wants people contributing as much as possible in a wide variety of topics, but he also wants everybody to stick to his personal worldview. And that last part simply doesn't work when you have open registrations. But with a by-application or by-invitation system, growth and popularity become major issues. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:42, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly, not to be argumentative, but Wikipedia [httphttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy doesn't at all intend to be a pure democracy]. Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but are you suggesting that Wikipedia has ''fewer'' rules than Conservapedia? If anything, I'd describe Wikipedia as a large bureaucracy compared to Conservapedia's "[[Conservapedia:Commandments|there is only one rule page]]". --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 11:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::I would add that the simplification of the commandments has added to confusion over what is (subtle) vandalism, what is a source, what is opinion, what is appropriate or inappropriate content. The inconsistent enforcement of these commandments has made for an uncomfortable work environment. For instance, here is the February 17 version of the [[John McCain]] page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=14293]... every edit to that point was made by Aschlafly and it clearly violates many of the commandments. Nothing is sourced, a good deal is opinion and not verifiable. When I cleaned it up by taking out the unsourced opinion, but leaving the unsourced fact, I was accused of removing factual information.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
==Who Exactly is Conservapedia?==
 
I am fascinated by the little disclaimer at the top of the debate page. Basically it says that this is a debate page, and ideas expressed here are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Hmmm. My question is... then whose ideas are they?!?!?! The people allowed to edit here are allowed to edit Conservapedia! The people typing on this debate page are the same folks who wrote the last article you read. "Conservapedia" is the title of a database, the figure head, if you will. What "Conservapedia" really is, is the editors. (Sorry for using the word "is" twice in a row. Hope that wasn't confusing.) If Conservapedians all became liberal right now, and wrote articles with liberal biases, this would still be Conservapedia. (Though very ironic, indeed.) Conservapedia is the ''title'' of this database - not the slogan. So who is Conservapedia? Conservapedia are the editors, not the definition of pro-life, not the ideology of conservatives. The people that are sitting in front of their computer screen, typing. And ''their'' ideology. Do not confuse the title "Conservapedia" as the unspoken rule guiding editors. Conservapedia is you, the editor. --[[User:Humph|Humph]] 16:46, 15 May 2009 (EDT)Humph
==Once more==
If you could give examples, and if they were reverted to the offensive text after you fixed them, that would be great. Thanks.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:::We have been told that the Bible is considered a reliable source on Conservapedia... that is for more than issues directly related to it. Are the holy books of other religions reliable sources as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Well, what does "reliable" mean? If a book has been in existence for a number of years, is read, studied and used as a base for thinking and action by thousands or millions of people, surely it has to be considered a valid source of information, huh ? When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When it comes to "reliable", the public's opinion of "reliable" is what is reliable (I would think) [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 04:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:Actually, "reliable" should not be based on consensus. If we used consensus in science, versus experimentation, I would never get on an airplane.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 
I for one am a Christian who would seriously disagree with most of the ''ahem'' content on this website. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
 
Hello, my first time on here. It looks to me that this website should be called "Judeo-Christianmythology-apedia." I mean, come on, does one have to be Christian to be conservative? Can't someone be outside of the Abrahamic faiths and be conservative? [[User:Deejayenrie]] 14:11, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
 
It is a site dedicated to American Evangelical Republican's and is anti-English as Wikipedia is anti-American.
== Is Conservapedia neutral or onesided==
Both are from here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&curid=2516&diff=52230&oldid=52221#request_your_help] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:I'd like to see this thread continued at [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia neutral or onesided?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 
 
This is off topic, but I have to say this somewhere and it might as well be right here:
Famously, Conservapedia refuses to define sexual intercourse so that children may be "protected" from the "vulgar" details of the act. All I can say is, parents: don't be surprised when your kid comes home pregnant because you were too foolish to inform them of EVERY SINGLE important detail surrounding the sex act (i.e., protection). Believe it or not, it is highly likely that your children will have sex in their teens (indeed, despite their good Christian upbringings), and it is extremely dangerous to withhold such crucial information from them. Remember, many so-called "conservative" parents who are so-called "pro-life" have a drastic change of heart regarding the abortion issue when their kids come home knocked-up. It is not wise to keep your kids in the dark - you will likely regret it.
 
I can say without the slightest hint of a doubt, that Conservapedia is made of Fail, Lies and Satan. Lies must be protected from change, Truth protects itself. The very fact that CP locks articles is proof that this encyclopedia-mimicking Propaganda-collection is filled to burst with Lies, Misinformation, and hate. I have no doubt at all that Satan himself is the creator and webmaster of this abomination.
Block, SkipCaptcha, bot
55,152
edits