Conservapedia talk:Featured articles
My friend are these articles that we wish to see improved or articles that we wish to have displayed as examples of articles that capture the spirit of Conservapedia? Thank you. Learn together 12:55, 14 December 2007 (EST)
- This is the list of articles that are proposed for the Main page's section "Featured articles". Please add as many as you wish. You can also object one or more of them or improve any as I did with I Have a Dream. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:28, 14 December 2007 (EST)
Could we have some indication of what order the articles will be made feature articles?
I assumed that Genesis would be the next one, as it was next on the list, so made some improvements to it (well, I thought they were improvements!). I didn't go beyond that. Of course, being an Aussie with little knowledge or nor interest in American politics, I wouldn't have done anything to the Republican Party article, so I don't feel cheated in that sense, but some advance notice on what will be next would be a good idea.
Philip J. Rayment 02:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)
- There's been no response to this query at all. And now an article that wasn't even on the list has been added to the main page. This prevented any of us from reviewing that article to see if it could do with any improvements before being posted.
- Could we please stick to posting the articles in the order listed. If someone thinks that the order should be changed prior to an article being posted on the main page, then fine, but the list should be reordered so that we still all know what will be next.
- Philip J. Rayment 08:23, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
- Dear Philip. In this article as in many of CP any one can edit, but there is an special team for this one. From my point of view, there is not a rule for order in the list. Dates in the year or events could have some significance to select one article. You may join the team if you like and have the duty to update it. Thank you for your interest. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 11:40, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
- I didn't know there was a team. DanH 15:52, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
- I'd like to be part of the team. Philip J. Rayment 01:37, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
As I have been "encouraged"...
... to get involved constructively in the site (I will save a 90/10 debate for the debate pages) I thought I might offer to help here in whatever capacity is needed (copy-editing future articles of note, etc...). However, I'm curious who's running this show? I liked the methodology described on the main page (a list of upcoming featured articles with plenty of advance notice, etc...), but Conservative has brought his google crusade to this project and pushed his atheism article to the front of the line.
Without making personal remarks, it's safe to say that I don't agree, philosophically, with how he goes about his business. Please let me know if a)you'd like any help here at all, and b)if so, what role he plays, if any? Thanks, Aziraphale 16:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
- What happened to the funny little lines you would always write after your comments? HenryS 16:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
- Having arrows that point at my non-standard user name seems to be "asking for it" in the current climate. ;) Aziraphale 16:25, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
- The Featured Article is "run" by a committee comprising Joaquín Martínez, Learn together, DeanS, and me (the late-comer. There was another person, but he has since been banned). Anybody can add featured articles to the list as suggestions, anybody can review and try and improve those articles, and anybody can suggest that any given article should not be used or can propose a change of order. But it is that committee that makes the final decisions on what is used and when (barring being overridden by someone higher up, such as Andy, of course).
- Some senior sysops have also had some discussion about setting specific criteria that featured articles should meet, but nothing much has come of that yet.
- You are welcome to help in any of those ways I've mentioned. Philip J. Rayment 22:28, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
- Unfortunate timing or fate? I'm going to have to look elsewhere on the site, Philip, sorry. Aziraphale 19:30, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
I think it would be important to consider this for next update:
15:00, 1 May 2008 Conservative (Talk | contribs | block) (I believe a major online conservative christian newspaper is going to do a story on conservapedia's atheism article)
- Perhaps there should be a concerted effort to create the red-linked pages in the article? As a shop-window, so to speak. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 19:44, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
- Fox, thank you for your very practical suggestion. Conservative 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
- Secondly, google has a measure how popular a webpage is through something called PageRank. The higher your pagerank the more popular your webpage. Conservapedia's main page has a pagerank of 5. Eagle Forum's main page has a pagerank of 5. The www.worldnetdaily.com mainpage has Page rank of 7. The NY Times website main page has a pagerank of 9. The conservative Christian news organization who has a reporter that is interested in the Conservapedia atheism story has a very respectable page rank and it is better than conservapedia's main page. Also, some Christian apologists with PHDs and websites are going to support conservapedia's atheism article. An award winning Christian author who has multiple web sites is going to endorse conservapedia's atheism article vis a vis his websites. A conservative organization with a website having a page rank of 4 has promised to feature conservapedia's atheism article. There is also other things going on as well. For example, a christian organization who's leader spoke before the National Religious broadcasters convention and whose websites had 100,000 plus people become Christians after going to the organization's websites recently linked to conservapedia's atheism article. I do think a good case can be made for keeping the Conservapedia atheism article the article of the month. It seems to be getting good endorsements and a case can be made that it could attract good editors of conservapedia. My gut tells me that it could become the next homosexuality/theory of evolution article in terms of web traffic that it brings to conservapedia. Conservative 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
- Fox, thank you for your very practical suggestion. Conservative 22:22, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
How long is the atheism article going to be featured? Jallen 22:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
- I hope for the month of May. I can do some of the promotional work and I would appreciate it if some people helped out in terms of the red links in the atheism article as user Fox mentioned. It does help in regards to people linking to you if you have an article with no red links. Conservative 00:10, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
- I agree. --DeanSformerly Crocoite 00:52, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
- You have my support as well. ;-) Learn together 12:42, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
Even further downgrade?
I'm quite sad to see Conservative disrupting this project so badly. I didn't even realize we had a new Featured Article! Why? Because it's now on the middle of the second page, under the "Masterpiece of the Week", under the "Article of the Year", under the "Popular Articles" list, without its own headline and filed under "Suggested article". Really, you might as well not bother. Nobody is going to notice. Stop pretending that people will scroll past non-CP content (painting), that article section that will not change for the next half year and the mostly static list of "popular articles"... only to check out the tiny paragraph where the actual Featured Article is.
My suggestion: Be bold, restore the Featured Article in its old glory - above the "Article of the Year". I don't care that Conservative wants his article to be in the page-1 spotlight all year long, but this site isn't just about him and his Search Engine Optimization "Operations". It's about people who come to Conservapedia and who will be bored once they see the same "featured article" all the time. --JBrown 09:04, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Featured Article: Wikipedia?
Why do we feature "Wikipedia"? That article screams "activism" and "bias" and doesn't reflect well on this "encyclopedia". Anything that can be phrased negatively will be phrased negatively, anything bad that is remotely connected to Wikipedia made its way into it, and after the "Quality" section (one of the few sections that actually point out a few good properties between all the criticism), the article can be summed up as "scandal scandal scandal hoax scandal bias scandal". Which is a bit weird, considering how most of those things are fairly obscure to the everyday guy and have little impact to the site as a whole. And don't even get me started on the "Two wikifascists find someone without a biography" or "The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!" images.
I do acknowledge that the article is unlikely to change because it appears to be written mostly by sysops, so I won't even bother posting this on the appropriate talk page, but I think it's a bad choice for the Featured Article project... even if it has been disrupted to the point of being completely non-notable (see section above). --JBrown 09:13, 22 May 2008 (EDT)