Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?

380 bytes removed, 02:15, 27 September 2018
/* Original discussion from UserTalk:Aschlafly */HTTP --> HTTPS [#1], replaced: http://en.wikipedia.org → https://en.wikipedia.org
: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.
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
 
I believe that Conservapedia is a parody on Conservatism written by crazy liberals seeking to one-dimensionalize and ridicule our position. They make us out to seem so gullible, irrational and egg-headed! I think that these liberals should be screened- otherwise the strawmen they set up here will be so easy to argue against and conservatism will be quickly sent to the grave!
==Once more==
Block, SkipCaptcha, bot
55,351
edits