View source for Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?

Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire?  There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them.  Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree.  I see several articles about people who never existed, but sound like they might have. Case in point, all the Spanish profanity on the Cambodia page that sat there for over a month until I decided to let everyone in on the joke. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:how does Wikipedia do it?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has thousands of times more users...and hence is much more likely to notice factual errors.  Conservapdia has a small (as of now) user base, and hence, articles may go weeks, or even months without anyone noticing incorrect dates, spellings, facts, and blatant fabrications.  [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|this]], or [[exotheology|this]], or his contributions [[Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?|here]].  When I first read the [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|first]] of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it ''was'' a liberal satire. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think liberal satirists are talented enough to produce something like that, which takes someone a bit special. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 15:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Really?  Because there are several satire articles on here.  I'd name them, but I'm just a dumb ol liberal. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 15:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

"Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered." How can you say that? All that's here is politics and religion. And how can a website set up to be a conservative encyclopedia claim to be unbiased? -LiberalScientificPatriot

If you think that's all we have, then you haven't explored the whole site. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:This may sound a bit controversial but there '''is''' a low editor base here compared with say WP.  Even if someone has written a liberal satire would other liberals neccessarily notice it?  I don't think that would always be the case.  I have seen several instances of supposed satire that have been changed by supposedly liberal editors.  I think that blocking too many contributors actually increases the amount of vandalism rather than the other way round, a bit like gun control, I guess. [[User:InGodWeTrust|InGodWeTrust]] 16:20, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

There are satire articles and edits on here which the people running the site will never spot, because they simply don't know enough about the world. Some of them are very funny, and most of those that I've noticed are not mocking of conservatism or religion, they just make use of some of the prejudices and blind spots which conservatives (American conservatives in particular) have. One satire I noticed very probably breaches copyright law, but hell will freeze over before anyone gets sued over it, as it started out as satire; I imagine its original author would be delighted to find it here. I can't see how this site will operate without such vandalism taking place, but that's the price you pay for trying to put a conservative spin on truth. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 21:19, 28 June 2007 (EDT)