Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?

2007-07-12T21:39:35Z

BritishConservative: /* No */ Further ref. ref. cut and paste in haste

{{debate-project}}

Obviously copyrighted material should not be plagiarized/stolen, and this debate focuses more on a quote from Aschlafly has been thrown around a lot lately:
<blockquote>Joaquin, one good type of resource that I want you to be aware of is this: United States government websites. Because we funded those websites as taxpayers, there is no copyright protection and we can almost always copy information from them without attribution or restriction. If the information is unbiased, as in scientific terms or information about countries or numerous other topics, then copying from those websites is fine. The same is not true for state websites (e.g., California or Florida), because they often do assert a copyright. Also, there may be prohibitions on copying certain US government images, such as the emblem for a division of government like the CIA.</blockquote>

Is there a problem with this method of adding content to Conservapedia?

==No==

We are going for quantity not quality. Although out first [[Conservapedia:Commandments|commandment]] says ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia<ref>It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue.</ref> or elsewhere unless it was your original work.'' But recently we have decided that ''cut and paste in haste'' from .gov sources is fine<ref>"We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites."[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=216373&oldid=216298].</ref> if you add a reference after what you copied<ref>"Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying." [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=81393]
</ref>. Do not copy from out of copyright versions of Encyclopedia Britannica because Wikipedia did that early on in order to up its article count. That's [[liberal]] [[deceit]] we don't do deceit<ref>"If we have to, use Britannica as a guide (and only a guide...no copying!) to structure and flow of thought." [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Team1:Players&diff=prev&oldid=221982]</ref>. Remember we [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|encourage conciseness here]] so don't copy more than a few sentences. We usually just copy what most people know already so we don't overburden them with [[ignorance|too much knowledge]]. Remember don't add a ''stub template'' like at Wikipedia because that implicitly encourages long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fact&direction=next&oldid=45426 facts].

<references/>

: In copying from public domain works that are secondary sources of information, it still lacks references to primary sources of information. For example, for [[Bangust]], http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2/bangust-i.htm is a secondary source of information. It was not eye witness accounts but rather an accumulation of them. There are many statements made in there that are pulled from primary sources that are not attributed and the secondary source itself is not a verifiable reference. For those, you need to go to primary sources such as http://www.bangust.com/ . With this massive copy and paste effort underway, this attention to primary sources is being lost. Ultimately, it will take more time to clean up this (adding links to legal terms, finding references for statements made in military histories) than it would have been just to sit down and write it in the first place.
: Another point to be made is that if Conservapedia is striving to be the source of information for people to go to, quality can never take a secondary position to quantity. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:12, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
As far as I understand, Conservapedia exists to provide a conservative viewpoint. However, many of the articles being created during this Team Contest are simple glossary information that really can't be spun one way or the other (take [[User:Crocoite/Contest|Crocoite's copying of volcano terminology]], for example). It seems like with the limited editors that Conservapedia has, it would be a better use of editors' time to develop their own articles about topics that ''can'' be spun by liberals rather than just copy neutral information. Additionally, copying information just adds one more place where it has to be kept up to date. Now it's doubtful that volcano terminology is going to radically change any time soon, but there are many topics that do change often, and all that users will find on Conservapedia about those topics will be outdated information from the original copy instead of the updated information at the source. This is especially true if people copy over pages that no editor here is qualified to maintain. Finally, as more and more information is copied over, this problem just gets more and more complicated since there is more information that can potentially change more and more often.

Since Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, I feel that articles on Conservapedia should be original work based on facts rather than straight copy and pasting. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?

2007-07-12T18:09:49Z

BritishConservative: /* No */ Source for Britannica usage

{{debate-project}}

Obviously copyrighted material should not be plagiarized/stolen, and this debate focuses more on a quote from Aschlafly has been thrown around a lot lately:
<blockquote>Joaquin, one good type of resource that I want you to be aware of is this: United States government websites. Because we funded those websites as taxpayers, there is no copyright protection and we can almost always copy information from them without attribution or restriction. If the information is unbiased, as in scientific terms or information about countries or numerous other topics, then copying from those websites is fine. The same is not true for state websites (e.g., California or Florida), because they often do assert a copyright. Also, there may be prohibitions on copying certain US government images, such as the emblem for a division of government like the CIA.</blockquote>

Is there a problem with this method of adding content to Conservapedia?

==No==

We are going for quantity not quality. Although out first [[Conservapedia:Commandments|commandment]] says ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia<ref>It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue.</ref> or elsewhere unless it was your original work.'' But recently we have decided that ''cut and paste in haste'' from .gov sources is fine<ref>"We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites."[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=216373&oldid=216298].</ref> if you add a reference after what you copied. Do not copy from out of copyright versions of Encyclopedia Britannica because Wikipedia did that early on in order to up its article count. That's [[liberal]] [[deceit]] we don't do deceit<ref>"If we have to, use Britannica as a guide (and only a guide...no copying!) to structure and flow of thought." [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Team1:Players&diff=prev&oldid=221982]</ref>. Remember we [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|encourage conciseness here]] so don't copy more than a few sentences. We usually just copy what most people know already so we don't overburden them with [[ignorance|too much knowledge]]. Remember don't add a ''stub template'' like at Wikipedia because that implicitly encourages long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fact&direction=next&oldid=45426 facts].

<references/>

: In copying from public domain works that are secondary sources of information, it still lacks references to primary sources of information. For example, for [[Bangust]], http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b2/bangust-i.htm is a secondary source of information. It was not eye witness accounts but rather an accumulation of them. There are many statements made in there that are pulled from primary sources that are not attributed and the secondary source itself is not a verifiable reference. For those, you need to go to primary sources such as http://www.bangust.com/ . With this massive copy and paste effort underway, this attention to primary sources is being lost. Ultimately, it will take more time to clean up this (adding links to legal terms, finding references for statements made in military histories) than it would have been just to sit down and write it in the first place.
: Another point to be made is that if Conservapedia is striving to be the source of information for people to go to, quality can never take a secondary position to quantity. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:12, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
As far as I understand, Conservapedia exists to provide a conservative viewpoint. However, many of the articles being created during this Team Contest are simple glossary information that really can't be spun one way or the other (take [[User:Crocoite/Contest|Crocoite's copying of volcano terminology]], for example). It seems like with the limited editors that Conservapedia has, it would be a better use of editors' time to develop their own articles about topics that ''can'' be spun by liberals rather than just copy neutral information. Additionally, copying information just adds one more place where it has to be kept up to date. Now it's doubtful that volcano terminology is going to radically change any time soon, but there are many topics that do change often, and all that users will find on Conservapedia about those topics will be outdated information from the original copy instead of the updated information at the source. This is especially true if people copy over pages that no editor here is qualified to maintain. Finally, as more and more information is copied over, this problem just gets more and more complicated since there is more information that can potentially change more and more often.

Since Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, I feel that articles on Conservapedia should be original work based on facts rather than straight copy and pasting. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?

2007-07-11T23:04:12Z

BritishConservative: /* No */ We are going for quantity not quality

{{debate-project}}

Obviously copyrighted material should not be plagiarized/stolen, and this debate focuses more on a quote from Aschlafly has been thrown around a lot lately:
<blockquote>Joaquin, one good type of resource that I want you to be aware of is this: United States government websites. Because we funded those websites as taxpayers, there is no copyright protection and we can almost always copy information from them without attribution or restriction. If the information is unbiased, as in scientific terms or information about countries or numerous other topics, then copying from those websites is fine. The same is not true for state websites (e.g., California or Florida), because they often do assert a copyright. Also, there may be prohibitions on copying certain US government images, such as the emblem for a division of government like the CIA.</blockquote>

Is there a problem with this method of adding content to Conservapedia?

==No==

We are going for quantity not quality. Although out first [[Conservapedia:Commandments|commandment]] says ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia<ref>It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue.</ref> or elsewhere unless it was your original work.'' But recently we have decided that ''cut and paste in haste'' from .gov sources is fine<ref>"We paid for work on government websites. It's ours already. It's not just public domain, but it is also bought and paid for by the public. So it's fine to copy unbiased material from such sites."[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=216373&oldid=216298].</ref> if you add a reference after what you copied. Do not copy from out of copyright versions of Encyclopedia Britannica because Wikipedia did that early on in order to up its article count. That's [[liberal]] [[deceit]] we don't do deceit. Remember we [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia|encourage conciseness here]] so don't copy more than a few sentences. We usually just copy what most people know already so we don't overburden them with [[ignorance|too much knowledge]]. Remember don't add a ''stub template'' like at Wikipedia because that implicitly encourages long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fact&direction=next&oldid=45426 facts].

<references/>

==Yes==
As far as I understand, Conservapedia exists to provide a conservative viewpoint. However, many of the articles being created during this Team Contest are simple glossary information that really can't be spun one way or the other (take [[User:Crocoite/Contest|Crocoite's copying of volcano terminology]], for example). It seems like with the limited editors that Conservapedia has, it would be a better use of editors' time to develop their own articles about topics that ''can'' be spun by liberals rather than just copy neutral information. Additionally, copying information just adds one more place where it has to be kept up to date. Now it's doubtful that volcano terminology is going to radically change any time soon, but there are many topics that do change often, and all that users will find on Conservapedia about those topics will be outdated information from the original copy instead of the updated information at the source. This is especially true if people copy over pages that no editor here is qualified to maintain. Finally, as more and more information is copied over, this problem just gets more and more complicated since there is more information that can potentially change more and more often.

Since Conservapedia is an encyclopedia, I feel that articles on Conservapedia should be original work based on facts rather than straight copy and pasting. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Settled science

2007-07-08T17:56:34Z

BritishConservative: socialist thought police

[[User:Ed_Poor|€d]] why wa$te a good opportunity to i££u$trate the $en$e of [[free trade]]? The ¢urrent arti¢£e cou£d be u$ed to ju$sify [[Essay:_Liberal_Falsehoods|£ibera£ Fa£$ehood$]] that ¢onfu$e [[absolute advantage| ab$o£ute advantage]] with [[comparative advantage|¢omparative advantage]] i.e. [[offshoring|off$horing]] and the importation of unde$ired ''produ¢t$''. Even [[Liberal|£ibera£]] [[Protectionism|prote¢tioni$t]] e¢onomi¢$ are pedd£ed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&direction=prev&oldid=217623 here]. i$ thi$ <big>¢</big>ommypedia? [[User:BritishConservative|BritishConservative]] 20:35, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I believe this is meant to illustrate the silliness of "settled science".--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 20:38, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:You know, if you'd quit using currency symbols in place of letters, it would make your statement much easier to understand.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 20:44, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::I assume that if liberals reply with jokes, etc., it means they ''acknowledge'' that they cannot dispute the facts or principles involved. Why else would they try to make a distraction? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Uh, Ed, while I do consider myself liberal in many areas, I can still see that the person who originally said the quote is quite obviously a severely closed-minded nut.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 22:54, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Can I assume real conservatives are not welcome here and their contributions will be [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Settled_science&diff=221475&oldid=221463 deleted] by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s socialist [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Police thought police]. [[User:BritishConservative|BritishConservative]] 13:56, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Settled science

2007-07-08T02:29:52Z

BritishConservative: stop wasting my time

[[User:Ed_Poor|€d]] why wa$te a good opportunity to i££u$trate the $en$e of [[free trade]]? The ¢urrent arti¢£e cou£d be u$ed to ju$sify [[Essay:_Liberal_Falsehoods|£ibera£ Fa£$ehood$]] that ¢onfu$e [[absolute advantage| ab$o£ute advantage]] with [[comparative advantage|¢omparative advantage]] i.e. [[offshoring|off$horing]] and the importation of unde$ired ''produ¢t$''. Even [[Liberal|£ibera£]] [[Protectionism|prote¢tioni$t]] e¢onomi¢$ are pedd£ed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&direction=prev&oldid=217623 here]. i$ thi$ <big>¢</big>ommypedia? [[User:BritishConservative|BritishConservative]] 20:35, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

I believe this is meant to illustrate the silliness of "settled science".--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 20:38, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:You know, if you'd quit using currency symbols in place of letters, it would make your statement much easier to understand.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 20:44, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::I assume that if liberals reply with jokes, etc., it means they ''acknowledge'' that they cannot dispute the facts or principles involved. Why else would they try to make a distraction? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:00, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:So being a free marketeer with respect for science makes one a liberal? I have no problem with the science behind global warming. It seems pretty koscher to me. The external link was a well put argument for free trade. Something with which I whole heartedly agree. Of course my preference for facts and evidence over blind belief may not go down well here. Who has a monopoly on Conservatism? What is the joke? This encyclopedia or the experience that freedom and free market economies are irreseprable? Free people may think what they may, but without free economies they would hardly be in a position to do so. If freedom and facts are [[liberal]] then a liberal I am - your words not mine! Now stop wasting my time and create some wealth! (or articles for some points in Mr. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]'s [[talk:Main_Page#Mikhail_Kalashnikov|New socialst plan]]). [[User:BritishConservative|BritishConservative]] 22:29, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Settled science

2007-07-08T00:41:10Z

BritishConservative: Oops! Try that again...and again!

Talk:Settled science

2007-07-08T00:35:58Z

BritishConservative: wa$ted opportunity

[[User:Ed_Poor|€d]] why wa$te a good opportunity to i££u$trate the $en$e of [[free trade]]? The ¢urrent arti¢£e ju$sifie$ [[Essay:_Liberal_Falsehoods|£ibera£ Fa£$ehood$]] that ¢onfu$e [[absolute advantage| ab$o£ute advantage]] with [[comparative advantage|¢omparative advantage]] i.e. [[offshoring|off$horing]] and the importation of unde$ired ''produ¢t$''. Even [[Liberal|£ibera£]] [[Protectionism|prote¢tioni$t]] e¢onomi¢$ are pedd£ed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Tfa&direction=prev&oldid=217623 here]. i$ thi$ <big>¢</big>ommypedia? [[User:BritishConservative|BritishConservative]] 20:35, 7 July 2007 (EDT)