Talk:Main Page/archive20

How is that school tax dollars if it was at a college? Most of those speakers' fees come from student tuition charges. And since it was the students speakers bureau who selected him, that means it was the students who selected him. So students voted on who they'd like their student fees to pay for. I'm sure some people objected, but the majority rules. Maestro 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

It may have been from monies collected as student fees. But fees are a cost of attending school, so they are part of "school dollars." You can bet the students who paid those fees were not told that they might be used to give $50,000 to a convicted murderer. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

It looks like the organization hosts a wide range of speakers. A link to a list of past speakers is provided below. Some people might not want their tax dollars/fees spent to have Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan give a speech on campus. It seems like they are trying to present many points of view. I know that Ann or Pat are not "murders" but a lot of people don't view what Kevorkian has done as murder.

http://www.sg.ufl.edu/accent/pastspeakers.htm

Wismike

You found two conservative speakers on a list of over ... 100 speakers. That's less than 2%. The overwhelming majority of speakers are liberals, like Michael Moore. And you can bet Ann Coulter or Pat Buchanan did not receive the $50,000 fee being given to Jack Kevorkian.

103 speakers if you count Ben and Jerry as two people, don't count the Heads vs. Feds debate, Real World New Orleans, and the Spitfire Tour. Kazumaru 20:29, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Student fees are a liberal racket to the tune of $100 million a year in funding the Left. Most schools make these fees look like they are mandatory, even if there is a secret mechanism for getting out of them (which often has numerous hurdles). Our school dollars at work! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 17:24, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Liberty Universtiy charges $450 per year in student fees. Oral Roberts University charges $400 per year in student fees. Wismike

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but just to clarify the discussion: I count 28-ish conservative speakers and 30-ish apolitical speakers (athletes telling their stories of Olympic triumph, etc...), and 44-ish liberal speakers (including left-associated comedians just to be safe). Certainly more libs than conservatives, although maybe not the quantities suspected.

I've emailed Accent about speakers' fees but haven't heard back yet. It's an interesting subject... Aziraphale 17:58, 10 August 2007 (EDT) <-interested...

Where do you get "28-ish conservative speakers"??? Steve Forbes and Dan Quayle, maybe one or two others, for maximum of a half-dozen. And both of them were far more mainstream than the liberal examples of Alan Dershowitz, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Queen Latifah, Ralph Nader, etc., etc.

And, of course, the real outrage is in the fees. Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees. Notice how the liberals don't disclose that? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:29, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

(unindenting) Hi again Andy. It's a little late for me to recreate my work, and the spreadsheet I did is at my office, but looking again I come up with:Andrew Card, Ann Coulter, Ari Fleischer, Bob Dole, Dan Quayle, Dan Senor, Danny Coulson, Dave Thomas, George H Bush, Gerald Ford, George Pataki, Mark Sterner, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes... those are who I remember, many of those names I had to google the first time to figure out who they were, but you get the idea. Many of them are minor folks, agreed; I can't remember who, but several of them simply preach/lecture on combating alcohol & drug abuse, and so on.

When I'm less sleepy maybe I'll take a deeper look, but like I said I really don't have a stake in this argument; I was just trying to work the numbers for y'all. Aziraphale 02:45, 11 August 2007 (EDT) <-even the top of his head is tired...

Well, it's hardly fair to criticize them for not revealing something you just made up off the top of your head. "...probably received fees ten (10) times greater"; you're jumping to conclusions. Do you have any actual numbers? PortlyMort 18:34, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Hide a fact that should be disclosed, then expect people to estimate what you tried to conceal. That *is* fair. What's unfair is to conceal the truth and then complain when people can guess it anyway. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:37, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

But did you guess them correctly? I'd be very curious to see if the liberals got more, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them did, but I hardly expect 10 times as much. Usually speakers get fees proportionate to how well-known they are. I'd be pretty certain that Ann Coulter got a lot more money than Kyle Maynard, for example. Likewise I'd bet that Bill Clinton got more than Ann. But I don't see how one can gripe about specific fees paid when we don't know what those fees actually are. PortlyMort 19:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

You don't see how sometime can estimate when the truth when someone else conceals it???? Don't ever become a cop, then, or a judge, or a juror, or a teacher, etc. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:01, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I see how someone can estimate the truth when it's concealed. But I also see how someone can signicantly estimate the truth completely inaccurately as well. In this case we have no evidence to back up any assertion. You can claim that Mo Rocca got 10 times as much as G.H.W.B., but without some evidence I'm not going to take your word for it, nor should any cop, judge, juror, teacher, etc. PortlyMort 20:12, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

You have all the evidence you need on the front page: liberal Jack Kevorkian is being given $50,000 as his speaker fee. You also have free will to reject the evidence. Regardless, I fully expect you to insist on having the last word here, as is the liberal style. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 20:51, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with, PortlyMort, and I think 10 times is probably not true. The fees are tied to how well known the speaker is, it's common sense: every speaker knows how much they're worth and won't show up if they are offered less. Do you really think George H Bush would show up if he gets only $5,000, especially if he sees someone like Kevorkian getting (10 x) more?--Atkins 16:37, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure you're right Andy. To know whether an estimate that A is 10 times the size of B is close to the truth or wildly inaccurate, you'd need to know more than just the value of A. You'd need to know at least something about the value of B. So we actually don't have all the evidence we need on the front page. Don't worry though. I'm an actuary and I've come across far worse use of statistics from lawyers! (By the way don't get me wrong, A could be 100 times the value of B for all I - or you - know.) And regardless, $50k is still a lot of money for a student body to shell out for one speaker. Ferret 01:22, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

I contacted ACCENT to ask for information about how they select speakers and what they pay. The response did not say how much they pay although a web search brought up an article on Bill Clintons speech for ACCENT that indicated that he was paid $80,000 (he donated it to his foundation). Regarding the Kevorkian speech they did say this:

"ACCENT is not trying to convince anyone of Dr. Kevorkian’s position. Rather, we hope to present an issue on which the student body can choose for themselves. We believe that just because a student is exposed to an idea does not mean they will believe it to be truth or make them change their belief.

ACCENT is developing a forum that will be held following Dr. Kevorkian’s lecture which will allow for all sides of the issue to be heard. Specific details and speakers are still to be determined."

They also indicated that they do not receive taxpayer money. The money is all from student fees. Since attending any particular college is voluntary, it would be difficult to call the fees a tax. If students or parents don't want to support this type of program, they can choose to go somewhere else. Wismike

I am a graduate of UF. Ann Coulter spoke twice. The first time was paid for by the Alachua County Republican Party. She received $30,000 and spoke on campus (http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php). The second time was funded by ACCENT. She received $32,000 and also spoke on campus (http://www.alligator.org/pt2/060405coulterprev.php). Please note that the Independent Florida Alligator is the main student newspaper on campus. Its offices, however, are located off campus, and it is not funded by UF. It is often criticized for being too liberal-leaning, so I do not see how the liberals are hiding the facts. I also don't think there is some liberal conspiracy behind student fees. Our fees went to a multitude of services, including multiple on-campus gym memberships, free use of the RTS bus system throughout the entire city of Gainesville, lab equipment (lots of broken test tubes in chem lab, haha), and other things (http://www.registrar.ufl.edu/catalogarchive/0405catalog/student-information/fees/enrollment-student-fees.html). Xenophobia

Good to have some solid figures. So the liberal got more than the conservative, but both figures were in the same ballpark (no "ten times more"). Clinton got more than Kevorkian or Coulter, but that stands to reason, as ex-Presidents are very high-profile figures. And I'm sure they all got more than Kyle Maynard. These are about the results I expected. PortlyMort 15:59, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

If 'Conservapedia' consists of some guy ranting about liberal 'conspiracies' with student fees (without any references) and some guy who assigns (without any logic) arbitrary political spectrums to guest speakers at a college he has never attended, doesn't that kind of go against the whole '10 Commandements' (and multiple addendums) of Conservapedia? Note: I expect to have my account banned by tomorrow for writing this. Xenophobia

• I am sorry you come here with that obvious chip on your shoulder, Xenophobia. Posting what you did on a talk page, showing you are ignorant (as any newer user would be) of our rules and procedures, is not a blockable offense. Of course you show complete indoctrination with a relativist POV, a secular progressive one. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:19, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

My account was banned the day I made it...I had not posted, I participated in no discussions. I was banned for what my name was. I had to pose as a baptist minister and e-mail the admin who banned me in order to get my IP address reinstated into conservapedia. So there is a prime example of "Conservapedia's" terms of service. But, you did not address my point; how can aschflay (godspeed) accuse college fees of being part of a liberal conspiracy, especially without any evidence or logic? This website just seems like spin to me.Xenophobia

• You had to? You had to use deceit to get your user name back, and your IP unblocked? It never occurred to you to just send an email to Joaquin, asking, and saying you meant no ill-intent, with your user name, or offering to change it? Almost all sites where registration is required, have some form of review of user names...that isn't weird, or unusual, so you are being disingenuous even commenting on it, and using even more deceit in claiming it was somehow draconian or unusual to have criteria for names. Mr. Schlafly knows one of the biggges is using student fees to promote a secular-progressive agenda, as do most thinking people. It doesn't require a brainiac to see Conservative and even Centrist speakers are booked far less often than Liberal ones. I don't think someone who is an admitted liar can be taken seriously or even respected, so this dialog is done, so far as I am concerned, I think. Good luck to you. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

I do see your point of me using deceit. I am not proud of using it. But why was my IP banned? I had not done anything, and my name is not offensive in the least bit. To boot, the reason sent to me in the e-mail for me being banned was given as, "/." I didn't even get a "you suck." Anyway,I don't see how the 'Mr. Schlafly knows...as do most thinking people' argument is convincing. I provided a link explaining what our student fees go toward. You simply tried to destroy my character.Xenophobia

• I did? Your own actions do that, did that. Given the high rate of vandalism and trolling here, anyone with half a wit wouldn't be surprised or mad at a block happening. Maybe your IP was very close to recent vandals....ever think of that? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 22:16, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

The article about Wikipedia entries being filled with so much junk was very enlightening. Would you perchance know where I could find the higher quality sites that intelligent editors are moving to? JohnMalin 12:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Sure, I'd be happy to. Try:

• Conservapedia
• Citizendium
• CreationWiki

There are probably others too that should be added to this list. But if you prefer a low-intelligence version of the National Enquirer, then feel free to stick with Wikipedia! My understanding is that nearly all the smart people have left Wikipedia, including its co-founder. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:00, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh that's not true at all, not even in the slightest. All open wikis have a problem with reliability, it's obvious, and Conservapedia suffers from this just as much - perhaps more - than other Wikis. Yes, there's unreliable info at Wikipedia, no doubt about that. But that's also the case at every other wiki out there - and particularly here at CP, where the article quality is astonishingly poor - due not only to a particularly blinkered understanding of what a 'fact' is and the narrow political compass of its admins but also, in fairness, to a tremendous quantity of vandalism . The point is that the Wiki model as an accurate method of devleoping a repository of reliable information is failing, and for no reason other than the mischievous nature of Man. In any population, there are those with mischievous intent, axes to grind, mean-spirited intent, or for whatever reason, a wish to spread deliberate disinformation, and while wikis remain open, there's simply no way to stop it. If one wiki is unreliable, all of them are, by definition. Conservapedia should know better than to sling mud when their own house is in considerably worse shape. BobS 14:16, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Bob, I can tell you're a liberal and you probably dislike Conservapedia for that reason. But Conservapedia bans gossip in its rules, while Wikipedia encourages it to build traffic just as the National Enquirer does. That is a clear difference and that matters just as much as in comparing the National Enquirer to the Economist. Or do you think all magazines are equal too?

Every test of a random sample of articles at Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia has found that Conservapedia entries are more educational and more encyclopedic. Do the test yourself using Random Pages if you like, and watch how much junk is returned on Wikipedia. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 14:26, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, attacking me on a wild and unsubstantiated hunch as to whether I'm liberal or not isn't the point. And it's completely presumptive to assume that because I may be liberal that I am in favour of dishonest information and ambiguation. Now, if you can keep some manners please, let's discuss your point in a civilised way. And please, refrain from making uncited and irrefutable claims such as "every test..has foudn CP to be more educational", it's misleading information.

You are missing my point - this isn't an argument about whether CP is more accurate than Wikipedia. I'm quite sure we can both find examples of flawed info on both. My point is - can you explain to me why it would be that your open wiki should be considered to be any more trustable than any other open wiki? BobS 14:44, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Bob, admit you're a liberal first so that people can see up-front why you don't like Conservapedia. But you won't do that. Maybe you think you're going to fool someone people here. You won't.

I gave you one reason why Conservapedia is better than Wikipedia. Conservapedia bans gossip; Wikipedia welcomes it. You failed to address that clear difference. If you don't think that matters, then try to learn from the National Enquirer.

How many scholars contribute to the National Enquirer? Zero, of course. That's also about how many still contribute to Wikipedia. Cheers and Godspeed.--Aschlafly 15:01, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Sources are the devil. Kazumaru 20:05, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

I shall try.

To start with, CP has in place a level of self-policing and security that you will not find in any other truly open Wiki. (FYI, CreationWiki is not open the way CP is open. At CW, editorship is granted only to those who apply for the privilege and win acceptance. I intend no criticism of CW--I can't, seeing that I am a user and administrator at CW as well as here at CP. But CW chose to address its vandalism prohlem in one way, and CP chose another.)

As I said: CP has an apparatus for policing and security that any other Wiki would do well to emulate.

In addition, CP has definite rules about what is, and what is not, acceptable as the topic, scope, or details of any article. Among other things, we forbid the inclusion of gossip--which we define as any rumor, true or false, of an event that might reflect badly on an article subject but has nothing to do with that subject's principal claim to fame. And where such negative information is relevant to the subject's claim to fame, then whatever that information is, had better be true, or it doesn't stay. Period.

In contrast: The article that we referenced on the Main Page profiles a phenomenon on WP that you will not find here at CP: corporate management/PR/marketing personnel getting advice to create editorial accounts on WP for the sole purpose of weighing in with the company line when WP's regular editors are engaging in what in any other context would be legally actionable libel and/or defamation of character. Now truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel or defamation. But the administrators at WP do not even attempt to police their site against outright lies about a person, unless and until that person complains--and even then, the person involved has to take legal action if he wants any offending--and untrue--material scrubbed. We have highlighted example after example of information on WP, chiefly about conservative political leaders or commentators, that is not merely defamatory but is also demonstrably false and/or misleading. Such false and misleading information often remains on WP for days or even weeks.

Finally: we have a definite standard as to what is, and what is not, encyclopedic. We do not write articles in order to build traffic; we have traffic in order to educate. In contrast, WP contains much material that I can only describe as "off-color," much of which is directly mirrored on some explicitly salacious wikis and even on a commercial site. I shall spare you the details of both my investigation and my findings, as CP is a family-friendly site. Let it suffice that WP has certain material on it that ought to embarrass any administrator. But that does not seem to worry WP's founder and chief developer, Jimmy Wales. He has a direct interest in driving traffic to a search engine of his own invention. As such he is at direct moral hazard--and Andy has shown repeatedly that Mr. Wales has long since yielded to that hazard.

You mentioned vandalism at least two posts back. You do understand, of course, that such vandalism never stands more than an hour or two, and the offending editors always get blocked indefinitely, without delay, and usually without specific warning. (Every editor gets a general warning: pull a stunt like that, get blocked.) But more to the point: ask yourself why the offending material that vandals usually try to insert is fifty percent "opaque" material (designed to make sure that the viewer can't see anything), forty percent pornographic and/or scatological, and ten percent political heckling. Now that ought to show you where some people's heads are.--TerryH^Talk 15:12, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, this business of trying to prove I'm a liberal is totally irrelevant - I'm trying to have an apolitical discussion about a much broader topic than simply CP vs. Wikipedia. I'm trying to talk in an intelligent way about something that's a tech/internet/computer society issue. Please, stop seeing every single issue in terms of liberal vs. conservative - this is not one of those. I'm asking you your opinion as the admin and owner of this wiki - and nothing else. Political views irrelevant Let me rephrase the question for you - do you think that the open wiki has any credibility any longer as a reliable source of information? I, personally, have never had much faith in any of the wikis out there, for exactly the same reason you do, and I'm curious to know how you see the all wikis of the internet going forward from here? BobS 15:16, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

BobS, you come across knowing too much for a "newbie". Jallen ^talk 15:17, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

I think "BobS" (if that is his real name) does make a few good points; some are ones I addressed a bit in the past. I do think Andy's statement that "every test of a random sample of articles at Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia has found that Conservapedia entries are more educational and more encyclopedic" is worth looking at. As he provided no examples, I've decided to do so myself. As using random articles from both CP and WP would be comparing apples and oranges (how does one compare an article on John Lilly with one on Jeanne Hébuterne, to use 2 random searches?), I decided to use CP's random articles generator, and compare it with WP's corresponding articles. (Vice versa wouldn't work; with WP having about 130 times more entries, very few random articles at WP would have entries here.) Here are results:

1. Llandudno vs. Llandudno - WP's is longer, but not necessarily better.
2. Sacajawea vs. Sacajawea - again, longer, but not necessarily better.
3. Precambrian vs. Precambrian - WP's is longer, and overall substantially more educational, though lacking the YEC view (as would most general purpose encyclopedias).
4. Nicene Creed vs. Nicene Creed - again, much more info at WP.
5. World War II vs. World War II - WP's article is cetainly very long (147 KB), and therefore perhaps less than completely concise, but the subject undoubtedly deserves a great deal of coverage.
6. Yiddish vs. Yiddish - CP's article here would probably be considered to be insufficient by many (5 sentences). WP's may be considered too long, I suppose. But all in all, in cases like this I'd say too much information is better than too little. One needn't read the entire article to learn from it.
7. The Chronicles of Narnia vs. The Chronicles of Narnia - The WP article may have too much trivia (a common problem over there). I'd be surprised that CP has this much on a series of children's books, were it not for the books' religious themes.
8. Manhattan vs. Manhattan - Again, much more information at WP (and again, less concise). CP devotes a substantial amount of the article to the religious history (basically ignoring what is actually in Manhattan), but that reflects tyhe differences between a general knowledge encyclopedia with one that is a bit more specialized.
9. Geology Terms B. Not really an article. WP doesn't have a corresponding entry, as they use categories for this sort of thing. It's a judgment call as to which is the better method I suppose (though I have noticed several CP articles along this line that were actually blank, and therefore of no benefit to anyone).
10. Clark Clifford vs. Clark Clifford - The pattern continues: more info at WP. Looking at the CP article, googling seems to imply that it might be largely copied from somewhere, but it's hard to tell (wikis change).
11. Expressly advocating. No article at WP, as this is more of a glossary term. Glossaries, being basically limited dictionaries, fall into a specific rule of what WP is not (although there will be substantial overlap between glossaries and encyclopedias, just not in this case). Whether one wants to call this a deficiency for WP is anyone's personal choice.
12. Larger Vehicle. No article at WP. The CP one is proposed for deletion (no reason given, bringing up the point that I still don't really know what CP's deletion policy is). I know little about Buddhism, and I can't verify if this is an accurate article right now. At best, it's a tiny stub, and should maybe be a redirect to Mahayana Buddhism, which is another tiny stub. WP's Mahayana Buddhism article is much more complete.
13. Liberal Democrats vs. Liberal Democrats - As usual, more information at WP.
14. Matthew Perry vs. Matthew Perry. This is an interesting case, as we have an article on the Admiral at CP and a disambiguation page at WP. If Friends had been a less popular show, this would probably go to the [Matthew C. Perry] page, with a header at the top for other Matthew Perrys. This is one of those cases where pop culture in WP starts to intrude on the more typically encyclopedic topics. Comparing the Commodore's articles we have 2 sentences at CP and much more at WP (although an extra click of the mouse to get there).

That's probably enough to get a feel for what the 2 encyclopedias have to offer. I think part of the discrepency is that CP seems to be going for more of a desk encyclopedia sort of approach (with Andy stressing conciseness) while WP is going way beyond the multi-volume paper encyclopedias, and, in some ways, redefining what an encyclopedia is (for better or worse). To say WP fails as an encyclopedia because it doesn't give short and to the point synopses is to say Britannica and others often fail in the same respect. As for article quality in both fact and form, I did this quickly and didn't read all the articles in their entirety. If anyone notices serious flaws in the WP articles, they should feel free to point them out. One of those bugbears is that more information also usually means more misinformation as well. Anyone can choose which encyclopedia "won" this little "contest", but to say that Conservapedia entries are more educational and more encyclopedic does not seem to be the obvious conclusion. PortlyMort 21:15, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

PortlyMort, I found your analysis interesting and thank you for that. But you didn't test what I said. Every test that compares random pages on CP to random pages on WP has concluded that CP is more educational and more encyclopedic. I can only conclude that you did not do that comparison because you knew your result would be likewise. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:37, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I didn't do that test because I didn't think it the most useful method of comparison. People usually use encyclopedias to look up certain topics, not to hit random article buttons. Any comparison like the one you suggest would automatically favor a smaller encyclopedia, and by that logic perhaps the "best" encyclopedia in the world might be something like Nupedia (if it still existed). Hitting the random article button there would yield quality articles on a range of highly encyclopedic subjects every time. The drawback is that it only ever had a couple dozen articles total (often on quite esoteric subjects), so it was not very useful as an encyclopedia at all. So yes, less fluff, but much less important information. The method I used above actually favored CP in that it automatically discounted any articles CP lacks (which, let's face it, is many). If I had used a truly random subject generator, such as flipping to a random page in my Columbia Viking Desk Encyclopedia, CP would have fared much worse. (Just now I wanted to see what CP had to say about Charles Stewart Parnell, but I found there is no article at all.) Sure, someone can hit the random article button at WP a few times and complain that they didn't see a single article on Churchill or Napoleon or Jefferson or Martin Luther. But that doesn't mean the articles aren't there (they are, and I'd wager they're at least as good as the ones here), it's just that the chances of finding one of them with a random article button are about 1 in 500,000. Of course, it is a bit unfair to compare an encyclopedia that's 7 years old with thousands of contributors with one that's less than a year old with only a handful contributing, but then again, I'm not the one that made the comparison, or insited that CP was more educational. The bottom line is it's more useful to judge an encyclopedia by its number of good articles, not by its dearth of "unencyclopedic" ones, or else a blank sheet of paper would win each time. PortlyMort 00:08, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I think BobS or whatever he is (or was) had an interesting point though, and it's as yet unanswered. Are all open wikis so subject to vandalism and users' agendas that they are all inherently unreliable? If membership was closed, wouldn't they be more reliable? Anyone got any thoughts on that? SimonJohnRitchie 15:27, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll take credit for the Clark Clifford entry; the CP version is all cited and consists of my contribtions to the WP version. I also laid out some of the format in WP. Rob Smith 17:15, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Ah, that explains the partial positives google was giving me. Some of the sentences were the same as WP (from your contributions there, evidentally), and have since been copied by the wikimirrors, while the WP version has further evolved, resulting in a few similar yet non-identical entires throughout the internet. I was wondering where the similarities came from. PortlyMort 17:21, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm flattered. It's a testament to the quality of my research. Recently, a fact checker went over List of Americans in the Venona Papers in WP and did a pretty good job. Most importantly, she totally removed a rebuttal placed by Chip Berlet as "irrelevent." Ironic, I was banned for two years because I said the same thing the fact checker said, Berlet's alleged "scholarly" sources were "irrelevent." Berlet's fellow Comintern operative, Mr. Fred Bauder, Chairman of WP ArbCom whom Berlet & Bauder worked togther in the Soviet sponsored National Lawyers Guild during the subversion of America's Vietnam war effort [1], considered questioning Berlet's alleged "scholarly" research a person attack, and banned me. Rob Smith 17:49, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Are you sure that Citizendium is one of higher quality sites that intelligent editors are moving to? I viewed some of their articles and couldn't fail to notice that their article about Evolution withholds the same information about how many scientists have noted the shortcomings and implausibility of the Theory of evolution about which our Article of the Week informs us. Their article about atheism is much like the one on Wikipedia. Their treatment of young earth creationism and Conservapedia ooze liberalism. They don't even have an article about Adultery. I myself can't see intelligent editors wishing to partake in what is nothing more that an elitist Wikipedia clone. JohnMalin 10:14, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Citizendium is not filled with gossip the way that Wikipedia is. Citizendium does not feature pornography in popular entries to boost traffic the way that Wikipedia does. Enough said? Maybe the National Enquirer calls the Economist "elitist", but I'll take elitism over juvenile gossip any day.--Aschlafly 10:32, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

I think it's also noteworthy to mention that none of the articles you question on Citizendium have Approved status, therefore they are not considered to be complete, adhering to the neutrality policy, etc. I'm not sure how them not having an adultery article fits into the argument, considering their small total article count. And furthermore, whether or not someone is conservative or liberal has little to do with their intelligence, IMO. --Colest 15:13, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

So Liberal bias is ok if its not accompanied by gossip and pornography? The Citizendium article on breast cancer certainly lacks the tasteless graphics found at Wikipedia but dismisses, with typical Liberal arrogance, the link between abortion and breast cancer, recommending the wikipedia article 'Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis' as a source of further information to prove their 'point'. You certainly have every right to prefer elitist Liberal bias over juvenile gossip, but is it a trustworthy source of information?

JohnMalin 06:56, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree, Jallen. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

IP check revealed multiple socks. Entire IP-range blocked. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ^θαλκ 15:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

• BobS, MissInfo, SuuKyi all with the same. I beleive this is my first encounter with Internet trans-sexualism! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:28, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

I think this would be trisexualism... Maybe it's possible for Aliens, but not us. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ^θαλκ 15:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

Hello, I have a quick question if you guys don't mind. Where is the CSS page? I'd like to add a new class to it (horizontal) - which I found on wikipedia.--Iduan 13:07, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

/* Style for horizontal UL lists */
.horizontal ul {
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
}
 
.horizontal li { 
  padding: 0 0.6em 0 0.4em;
  display: inline;
  border-right: 1px solid;
}
 
.horizontal li:last-child {
  border-right: none;
  padding-right: 0;
}

I'm curious as to how Karl Rove's resignation "opens up" the 2008 Presidential Race? Is the suggestion that he might run? SimonJohnRitchie 15:29, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

No, of course not. That is a reference to how Karl Rove has been controlling everything in the Republican Party.--Aschlafly 15:38, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I knew that, but I'm wondering is it believed he might move to manage the campaign of another candidate? Because, yes, that would seriously boost that person's chances, but I haven't heard that rumor? SimonJohnRitchie 16:05, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Why are the hackers liberals? It wasn't stated in the article - are all hackers liberal? Or are all anti-war individuals liberals? Surely there are anti-war Republicans, and pro-war Democrats?

I ask this seriously because I'm a relatively new to US politics. ATang 15:40, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The idea that they're liberal is sort-of vaguely implied in the article, but it's impossible to know what they class themselves as. Kazumaru 16:02, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Hacking is not a practice undertaken by conservatives due to its illegal and immoral nature. Since liberals were never taught moral values, they don't believe that hacking and vandalism are wrong and therefore they do it frequently.--Conservateur 16:58, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

• Exactly, Conservateur. Exactly. See the quote on the John Adams page. I think you will like it. Its in bold, and I added it this month....

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 17:14, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

That is one of my favorite Adams quotes. Thanks, ₮K, for sharing that with everyone.--Conservateur 18:12, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I would agree with ATang and Kazumaru here - you're both right that shouldn't be there, it's impossible to classify (what are likely) terrorist as liberal or conservative, that comment should be removed.--Iduan 18:19, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

This leads me to add another entry to Essay:Liberal Style the denial of something that is known to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, but cannot be proved with mathematical certainty. With the same level of confidence that jurors concluded, for example, that Scott Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child, we likewise know that someone who hacks into the U.N. website to post an anti-war message probably prefers John Kerry over George W. Bush. Let's not deny the obvious, OK? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 18:25, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually if you notice the source it's also anti-Israel - democrats don't typically run on a anti-israel campaign. But regardless it's just as likely to be terrorist or Palestinians or anyone. Let's not be ignorant of the facts and then attempt to make an assumption that we will define as obvious later on in argument, OK?--Iduan 18:27, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, so, in light of recent revelations, will you retract that comment, Aschlafly? Kazumaru 19:57, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

• Democrats didn't used to run anti-Israel, however check out the Daily Kos or he like sometime. The modern, revisionist Liberals are so full of deceit they now side with the terrorist/murderers! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 18:33, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

• • How's that deceitful? Furthermore, do you actually know what that means, or do you just like to use it every time you mention Liberals? Kazumaru 18:38, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

And if we don't take action, it won't be long before liberals go from siding with terrorists and murderers to joining their ranks and committing violent attacks against America.--Conservateur 18:54, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

How do you plan to eradicate the entire other side of the political spectrum without violating your own beliefs? You know, not to kill and such? Kazumaru 18:59, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

• Why we will educate them, Kazmaru! With Conservapedia and other alternatives to the deceit of the MSM! That is how! :D --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:18, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

... Okay, that time you disguised a link to the Liberal page as deceit. That's not going to draw Liberals to this place, is it? Kazumaru 19:23, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

• I don't know, Kazumaru....you are here!  :p --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:31, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

... Well played, TK. Well played. Kazumaru 19:57, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Examples of hackers:

• Liberal - Anti-War Hacker Indicted
• Islamist - The Islamists’ War on the Internet
• Terrorist - Terrorist 007, Exposed

--Crocoite 19:28, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

There is an analysis of the incident here, which points to Turkish crackers rather than US liberals. --Jalapeno 19:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

• Turkish? It says:

"So far we have identified two Turkish perpretrators and one of unknown nationality possibly operating from Cairo. But there are pointers to a possible Russian connection as well, via the group name "LamerHack team". LamerHack is the name of a Delphi trojan the authorship of which is claimed by VladUha (Russian), a 17 year old Russian hacker who seems to have a bit of a dark side to his force."

--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:45, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

To decide whether those hackers were liberal or not according to CP's standard, we can just look at the definition of Liberal. CP currently lists about 20 typical liberal positions; so if the hackers were liberal, we should find a few of them in their statement. User:Order 17 August

Conservapedia's definition of liberal states, "Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value." So we just have to determine if these hackers have freedom as one of their core values. - Borofkin2 23:56, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

This is the general definition derived from the roots of the term "liberal", and as such a bit vague. I was referring to positions such as: "removal of gender differences, such as treating men and women identically in the military", "taxpayer-funded abortion", "same-sex marriage", etc. If they are liberal hackers, some of those positions should show. User:Order 17 August, 16:00

Sorry--not trying to be a troll; I'm just not clear on how we established link between "atheistic" schools and Columbine copycats... could it be that this kids are just nuts? Or that the schools (or parents) are failing in ways that involve basic reality checks as opposed to theology? I ask because any number of historical serial killers have identified themselves as "very religious," and I see nothing in the article that suggests a lack of religion is what caused them to plot in the way they did. Thanks, --user:Fred.

Fred, read about the Columbine killers and the others who try to imitate them. They are not "just nuts." The Columbine killers were smart, sane, financially secure people who wanted to kill Christians, popular athletes and other innocent victims. The attempt to describe them as crazy is yet another attempt to deny the role of morality in life. The Columbine and Virginia Tech killers were not crazy, but they were atheistic and/or anti-Christian. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 19:20, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Anti-Christian doesn't mean atheist. Many anti-Christians are theists. Most actually are. User:Order 17 August

• One doesn't have to identify as being "religious", "born again", "Conservative" or "traditional" to be in favor of teaching the basic Jewish/Christian ethics the United States was founded upon. Teaching of the Ten Commandments, and morality have all but disappeared in today's secular world. And beware "studies" done by revisionist secularists stating such information about killers. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:27, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Mr. Aschafly and TK. My curiosity was aroused because, in comparing the Columbine killers "hit list" with the victims, it seems the people on their list weren't the ones they targeted; apparently once they started, they just indiscriminately killed. Extreme rage, yes, but they weren't targeting Christians when the guns came out, they were targeting anyone they saw. Also, I note that the FBI profile for serial murderers paradoxically shows fundamental Christian beliefs more often than not--I'm not sure I'd call the FBI a bunch of liberal revisionists, but I suppose it's possible. Is there evil in the world? You bet. But often it seems that we can't immediately assume that those claiming to be Christian don't do evil things, or that all evil is commited by atheists. It would be nice to think so, but possibly not accurate. Thanks again, --FredFred 19:55, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

• Fred, please fix your sig! Type four ~ after your post. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:46, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

More evidence that Wikipedia allows (if not encourages) smears, libel, and general misinformation in their articles...

"...somebody from a computer traced to Democrat HQ edited a page on conservative American radio host Rush Limbaugh, calling him "idiotic", "ridiculous" and labelling his 20 million listeners as "legally retarded"." [2]

--Conservateur 10:45, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Posted on the front page. Thanks for the tip!--Aschlafly 10:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, Conservapedia doesn't have this problem. They just consider stuff like what was cited above as good, honest editing. For example, Al Franken is "rude, vulgar and outrageously offensive"; Jimmy Carters "Further Reading List" only includes "Carter the worst ex-president", "Jimmy Carter is a liar" and "Jimmy Carters Jewish Problem"; about the only thing is says about James Carville is that he had some link with pornographer Larry Flint; and finally Woody Allen is categorized and called a child molester and more than half his page is dedicated to his affair with Soon-Yi Previn (see Woody Allen Talk). Wismike

Why did you leave out the name of the author of "Jimmy Carter is a liar"? The author of that is Alan Dershowitz, a prominent liberal. And the quote about Al Franken does not claim that he is "idiotic" and that his fans are "legally retarded" as the Wikipedia entry does. No, we don't engage in smears the way that Wikipedia does. And note how the Wikipedia smears came from Democrat HQ. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 12:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

I didn't include the names of any of the authors. It doesn't matter if the author's were all card carrying ACLU members. When you only refer users to sources that are critical of the person you writing about, it is a smear. As for your other complaint, I guess you are saying that if I go to your Rush article right now and insert a sentence that characterizes him as "rude, vulgar and outrageously offensive" you are going to leave that in place as a proper edit? Wismike 17:38, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

Wait - hold up - a vandal came and edited a page (which was probably reverted) - and that's wikipedia's fault? We've had a bunch of vandals - and if we were what they put up here we'd practically be communist.--Iduan 12:53, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

We've listed scores of smears promoted by Wikipedia that remain there to this day. See Bias in Wikipedia. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:28, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

I've had a look at the edit in question. It was removed in about one hour and a quarter, which seems a reasonable period. This is the diff removing most of the edit (there another for the rest a minute later: [3] Bronzefinger 15:51, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Was the editor or IP address blocked? Presumably not, which means the person responsible was allowed by Wikipedia to smear again. Numerous similar smears are identified in Bias in Wikipedia that lasted for days, weeks, months and some remain to this day.

Imagine how silly it would be to claim that a bank robbery was solved by finding and returning some of the money, without taking appropriate action against the perpetrator.--Aschlafly 17:29, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

In the two years since that edit, there has been no further vandalism from that IP. Please note that that edit was two years ago. You might ask someone more familiar with Wikipedia and the location of log files to see if any ban or warning was done and what the best practices where back then. Still, that is two years ago and an edit that was reverted in an hour. Is that really evidence that Wikipedia promotes slander in articles? --Rutm 17:40, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

No mention of the edits traced to Republicans or Diebold, eh? Guess they should come and airbrush their records on this site instead.Fuzzy901 17:47, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

It's not a question of how long the edit remained. What's significant is that someone at Democratic Party Headquarters edited Wikipedia to smear a prominent conservative. Wikipedia allows edits like these to be made and refuses to block the people who make them. Just because Wikipedia covers up these edits, doesn't mean they don't happen. --JonathanDrain 19:45, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

The Rush Limbaugh edit on Wikipedia is just one example. There are many additional examples of similar smears that lasted much longer, and some which continue to last unchanged to this day. In every case Wikipedia thinks that it is enough to revert the edit without blocking the editor or IP address responsible, or apologizing. Simply see Bias in Wikipedia for many similar examples, some of which have *not* been corrected.--Aschlafly 20:24, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

There are indeed many other examples of companies and individuals editing about themselves. However, for there to be a block a sysop has to notice the problem and do something about it. There are 849 sysops on Wikipedia that are active as of March '07. There are 4,000,000 registered users on Wikipedia in April '07 of which one report claimed 13,000 active editors in January of '06. Do you ever go fishing? Do you ever catch all the fish? I suspect that if Conservapedia grows to a similar size, it too will find itself missing the occasional vandalism that was fixed by an average editor and no sysop will block the user either. Its a matter of scale - right now you can handle it. What happens when the registered users outnumber you 5000:1 and the active users outnumber you 15:1 and there are hundreds of edits per hour that are done by users other than sysops? Whatever the case, it should be if there is any vandalism being missed when Conservapedia hits 1000 active editors (and how many sysops with block permission?) and if that is promptly blocked or not. --Rutm 21:13, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Having been on WP in the past, I can tell you that there are Sysops who continuously monitor Rush Limbaugh (as well as certain other articles). Your statement would be accurate for, say, a change to fortune cookie, but for Limbaugh - not a chance. Learn together 22:53, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

The Sysops at WP watch evolution-related sites continuously. Edits there are reverted within 60 seconds if they are not liberal enough for the WP Sysops.--Aschlafly 23:26, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

How is that defending the statement? It's obvious that a vandal came in and vandalized the page (and by the way - you're bank robbery comparison is flawed: a first time offender does get off easier a lot of the time) - and it's obvious per the revert that wikipedia does not encourage those edits. sure they sometimes encourage liberal edits - but what is listed on the main page is that vandal's edit, and that's thereby inaccurate to say that wikipedia supports that. It's like suggesting that because Nixon listened in on political conversations - he must've also listened in on american's phone calls, and obviously that's completely illogical.--Iduan 23:35, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

I heard this report on NPR. The vandals also smeared Al Franken, and promoted the Iraq War. It works both ways.Maestro 13:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Just a little while ago, a sysop posted a new page called "Parody: The Theory of Evolutions" which is basically just a series of cartoon type items ridiculing evolution and evolution scientist. This is exactly what I meant when I said that stuff that is "vandalism" and "sleaze" on Wikipedia is just considered good editing here. Wismike 16:58, 17 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

You overlook one key difference: here at CP, if any editor must publish parody, he labels it as such. WP's coverage of creationism degenerates almost into self-parody. I have never, on any other place begging its readers to take it seriously, seen the word pseudoscience slung about with such reckless abandon.--TerryH^Talk 17:09, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

You have got to be kidding! That is your defense of including stuff like this in an "encyclopedia"? So if the Encyclopedia Britannica start publishing porn in their books, as long as they label it porn, that's okay? Wismike 17:27, 17 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

There's nothing wrong with being exposed to parody, Mike. That's the difference. SPierce 00:01, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

"Conservapedian's are praying for the tragic victims of massive 7.9 earthquake near Lima, Peru.[2]" should read "Conservapedias are praying for the victims of the tragic magnitude 7.9 earthquake near Lima, Peru." Kazumaru 23:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, good suggestion. I'll fix now.--Aschlafly 00:03, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Kazumaru 00:12, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

• Kazumaru, the plural of all Conservapedia users would be "Conservapedian's". Conservapedias would connote several encyclopedias named Conservapedia. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 00:14, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually it should be conservapedians. --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk 00:16, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Oops, sorry. Left out that N. But apostrophe s would imply possession. Kazumaru 00:49, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

• Thanks, Tim....nice to see you around....:D --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 01:11, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

You know, guys, it's still wrong. "Conservapedians are praying for the tragic victims of massive 7.9 earthquake near Lima, Peru." still does not make sense. Sure, you took my first reccomendation, but you kind of ignored the rest. Let's see if it'll make sense this time. "Conservapedians are praying for the victims of the tragic magnitude 7.9 earthquake near Lima, Peru." Kazumaru 09:34, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

While others are nitpicking spelling and grammar, it might be useful to provide a link on the main page to some Christian charities for those of us who wish to make a donation. Here: http://www.ccusa.org/info.asp --Conservateur 11:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Or - more simply (although Kazumaru there's nothing wrong with your suggestion): "Conservapedians are praying for the tragic victims of a massive 7.9 earthquake near Lima, Peru." Just add one letter--Iduan 11:42, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

That should be "your suggestion", not "you're suggestion".--Conservateur 11:48, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

You're right - I'm changing that now - actually though I addressed that to the wrong person - so more than one thing (although honestly my grammar isn't going to be incredible when I'm on talk pages)--Iduan 11:52, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

It's not really nitpicking. The way it is now just doesn't make sense... You want this place to look like it's showing how great homeschooling is, don't you?

And: All statements about one's grammar or spelling will include at least one mistake... Kazumaru 18:15, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, you're still missing the main point here. The victims aren't tragic, "Massive 7.9" wouldn't make any sense to somebody unfamiliar with the Richter scale, and finally... Well, that's sort of where my point ends. Kazumaru 18:17, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

You guys seem to be editing the prayer statement a lot as of late, quickly switching out incorrect information and darkening the font... Is it REALLY that hard to make it grammatically correct? Kazumaru 08:05, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Kazumaru, it's a headline. Pick up a newspaper sometime. For brevity, headlines often leave words out and shorten expressions, as in "tragic victims" rather than "victims of a tragic earthquake." There is nothing grammatically wrong about "tragic victims" anyway. I suspect that you've got a different agenda here and that is behind your nitpicking. Do you call your newspaper with similar complaints? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:59, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't prove Wikipedia mods approve of this in any way. Kazumaru 23:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

That's what most people are saying above.--Iduan 23:58, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Ah. Just kinda skimmed over that, as it looked like an old conversation that had little to nothing to do with this. Kazumaru 00:00, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

With all due respect that edit was vandalism and was taken down as soon as it was discovered which hardly constitutes a case of wikipedia "allowing" bias within its articles. Conservapedia articles too have been victims of mischief edits, the page on New Zealand used to say it was a colony of Japan that was invaded by Australia, and CP cannot be blamed for "encouraging" or "allowing" that edit. Furthermore, how come only the Democrat party vandalism is named, when the article clearly discusses alleged incidences of bias from Republicans, the CIA and FoxNews? EQ 07:04, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

WADRTY, Mr. EQ, I cite this difference between CP and WP:

WP allows its vandals to keep on vandalizing.

Here at CP, we block our vandals.--TerryH^Talk 07:57, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I disagree, WP has a series of warnings that must be given yes, but that's only to ensure that someone isn't blocked for making a simple accident. Given the size of the site and the fact that anyone with an IP can edit can edit mistakes can easily happen and it is foolish to block someone for an extended period of time without giving a warning. If it is clear someone is vandalising a "once only" warning can be given, if they refuse that then they are blocked. WP is also cautious about blocking IP's for extended lengths because they are dynamic, my IP for instance changes every time I get dropped from the server (which happens far too often). Because of this I regularly get warnings that weren't intended to be given to me, but instead to other people using that IP. There is a whois function that can determine whether or not an IP is registered (as it would be the case with CIA or FoxNews), however many users on vandal patrol do not know how to use this, and even if they do they are unlikely to check an IP unless it has an extended history of vandalism or if there is a pretty clear conflict of interetst.

CP doesn't have these problems because we don't allow people to edit without an IP, if a vandal is to get blocked it is done through the account name. Because blocks are based on username it is much easier to differentiate between a deliberate act of vandalism and a simple mistake, and action can be taken accordingly. WP on the other hand does not have this luxery, and hence a protocol must be followed, both to protect new users and to ensure established users do not have to pay for someone else's actions. This, however, cannot be taken as a sign that WP "allows its vandals to keep on vandalizing", I think the fact that vandalism is rolled back on sight, that users are regularly blocked even with the warnings (just have a look here, it's something along the lines of a user/IP every couple of minutes, mostly for vandalism) and that the community takes a very strict stance on vandalism (one administrator request a few months back got rejected for the sole reason that he stated a piece of vandalism was "vaguely funny" in an edit summary when warning a user) is a clear sign that WP, like CP, does not encourage or allow vandalism of any kind EQ 08:19, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

The above argument assumes that any value remains in allowing anonymous, IP-only edits. Oh, that has value, all right--by allowing favored wink-and-nod agents to remain anonymous.

I'll match the security of CP against that of WP any day of the week.

Maybe WP has to stop hiding behind the excuse of a system less secure that it could be, when they could implement our security procedures any time they pleased.--TerryH^Talk 09:28, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Where do you get the idea that anybody is favoured? That'd work [expletive deleted] near opposite of the current system, where everybody editing under an IP is equal. Kazumaru 09:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

It comes down to a question of whether we should value security or contributions. There have been regular tests showing that 85% of contributions made by anonymous IP addreses are solid edits, and that over half of the remainder are simply reverted because they were not worded correctly or because they contained unverified information. Then out of the edits remaining a large number were simply errors or newbies trying out the system for the first time. Those few edits made by IP addresses which are vandalism are in most case quickly reverted, and then the IP address warned before it is blocked for a period of time (to allow for dynamic IP's). Given that WP receives a large, if not a majority of its edits from IP addresses I think it would be pretty foolish to prevent them.

Furthermore, while the system of account only editting has merit it is far from a perfect system. Accounts can be created in a matter of seconds, and even in CP where accounts are compulsory vandalism still occurs and it can be some time before it is reverted. At the end of the day the only way a wiki could be seen to be not "allowing vandalizm" would be to only allow editors who have proven their real life identity to contribute, and even this would have flaws, someone could fake their identification. This leads to the concept that only people known personally to the owner could edit, in which case virtually no edits would be made at all.

Put simply WP has its security system, and although it may be flawed it still allows the highest level of good faith contributions, and there are measures to try and stop any vandalism getting in. CP has its security system, and while it is much more secure than WP's it still gets vandalized. Neither site encourages vandalizm, neither site essentially allows vandalizm, you can criticise the security of WP all you want, but you cannot say it doesn't make a pretty decent attempt at stopping vandalism from entering. EQ 09:53, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293396,00.html

Pachyderm 11:00, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Good story. I read elsewhere that they polled the community this bishop lives in and something like 92% of his fellow citizens disagreed with him. So clearly his opinion is in the minority.--Conservateur 11:08, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

For anyone that edits the main page next: a line is needed under the "conservapedians are praying ..." and the wikipedia vandal.--Iduan 11:28, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

•  ?

--şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:01, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Haha, ok it's there now, but you know how we put a line (I assume ----) under every story? There wasn't one under the "conservapedians are praying ..." story.--Iduan 16:28, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

"Four in five teens in high school told researchers they have witnessed the use, sale or possession of illegal drugs on high school grounds, or seen someone who was drunk or high on campus." [4]

--Conservateur 14:43, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

Wow. Thanks again, Conservateur. I've posted it. You're the best.--Aschlafly 15:00, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree that this new statistic is worrying, but how does this line "Do parents really think their kids are learning in public schools???" fall within here? Perhaps a comment on the bad influence, but drug use does not necessarily mean lack of learning. (Yes, I always see a bunch of losers hanging around the school smoking and drinking, but there are also hard-working students who do drugs) I propose "What do parents really think their kids are learning in public schools???" instead, to reflect the corruption and lack of morals in the educational system. ATang 16:04, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

• Well, relativism is something pushed at other wiki's, I know. But not here, ATang. The majority of public schools are cesspools of immorality, and since positive moral values are not actually taught in secular-progressive environments, no use in watering it down. How can one teach moral values while also rejecting the concept of good and evil? How does one instill morality without teaching the grave punishments/consequences that await those who transgress? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't think he's implying... Whatever you're insisting he's implying. He's just saying the line seems to accuse public schools of not teaching ANYTHING. Kazumaru 21:40, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

• Well, no use speculating on what ATang meant. However, without proper moral teachings, it actually could be argued they are learning nothing. How does one work in a professional environment without a background of moral teaching? So-called "Ethics" doesn't admit to right and wrong anymore, just "different". --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 22:09, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

It's not really speculation, it's plainly obvious from what he said.

You're really going to argue that the only thing one can learn is "proper moral teachings"? Kazumaru 22:13, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

ATang might have a valid point except ... numerous studies show that public school students are NOT learning much. Besides, the idea that someone might learn in an environment of drugs is pretty ridiculous, wouldn't you say??? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 22:13, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

First off: Source?

Second, no. I seem to be able to learn in a public school.

Third, can we get a comparison of test results between homeschooled children and the rest of the population? Kazumaru 22:15, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure how many public school students aren't learning, but I seemed to have done pretty well, as a product of the public school system. I think everyone I've known has gone to a public school, and they seem to do well in life, not least because of good education. Also, I've yet to see failures in learning in University, where drugs are quite a bit more prevalent than in high school (even though I don't use myself). One might argue otherwise; I am biased after all - I'd like to think I've learnt something. ATang 12:03, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

It's a bit dodgy to imply that just because someone uses drugs, someone can't learn. People who use alcohol or tobacco recreationally manage to learn just fine. The same is true of marijuana. The problem starts when you begin abusing these things. When they start interfering with your educational, social, or professional life, then you, by definition, have a problem.

I had a friend who went to M.I.T. in the program for Aeronautical/Astronautical Engineering (Rocket Science) who graduated with honors. During his tenure at M.I.T. he did more drugs (and more types of drugs) than I even care to know about. Yet, he is still a fully qualified and amazingly talented engineer.--Porthos 12:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Folks, I don't want to pick on you, but how do you know you're learning anything? For example, how well can you do on the very basic midterm Economics:Midterm_Exam? The answers are available for you to give yourself a score, and I could then tell you how you compare to my class of high schoolers.

By most objective criteria, public school students are NOT learning. Many can't even read. No joke. Most can't answer basic questions about American history. Numerous published studies confirm this. Think they can do math? Forget about it for most of them. Many high school students don't even graduate, and many who do should not be receiving diplomas. I'm not trying to be negative, but just stating the facts. Look around at your own classmates.

Even public school students at the very top are not producing the way that homeschoolers have. Look at who wins contests like Intel science and spelling bees. A disproportionate number are homeschoolers. Godspeed.

As to Porthos's claim that someone can do drugs and still achieve, you've got to be joking. There isn't a single high performing intellectual who does drugs. Not one. Maybe MIT accepted your friend's tuition payments and gave him a degree, but he isn't solving any unsolved math problems or finding a cure cancer, that's for sure.--Aschlafly 12:26, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, you're right that if someone sits around the house all day taking bong rips and playing video games, the odds are pretty high that they aren't out there making any major medical breakthroughs. But how many doctors, lawyers, CEOs, or high ranking politicians do you think celebrate victories with a drink after work? Or maybe have a cigar to celebrate the birth of a grandchild? Or have a cup of coffee to get them going in the morning? (And yes...alcohol, nicotine and caffeine are drugs.)--Porthos 12:33, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and as for my friend: you are again correct, he is neither solving unsolved math problems nor finding a cure for cancer. But I believe this has more to do with the fact that he is an aeronautical/astronautical engineer rather than a mathematician or a medical researcher.--Porthos 12:40, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

How dare you say public school students aren't learning.

I know what I'm learning, and I'm learning to develop my skills in all subjects — math, english, history, science, and everything else I need to succeed in life. --AutoFire 12:31, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

You're confusing legal drugs with illegal ones. That's the key word here: illegal, which means you can't do it. As for justifying how good they are, you need to think back to May 15, 1981, when illegal drug use by at least four enlisted sailors onboard USS Nimitz slowed down their common sense and their reflexes when an EA-6B Prowler fighter/bomber crashed on the flight deck, killing them and ten others. Autofire and Porthos, don't you ever justify in any way illegal drug use like it's a good thing. Karajou 13:05, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

In other words, neither Porthos or Autofire will take the simple Economics:Midterm_Exam to test what they've learned. Enough said.

Instead, one of them used the standard (see point #16) Essay:Liberal Style to say, in effect, "shame on you for claiming public school students don't learn"! The "how dare you" and "shame on you" arguments ring hollow, particularly when I complain about something I'm paying for ... public schools.

Trying to make illegal drugs look like coffee or a drink with dinner is a standard pro-drug argument that doesn't hold water either. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 13:13, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I had just finished boot camp when that accident happened; further incidents involving drugs in the months since then had threatened the lives of several onboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (my first ship was part of that battle group). Karajou 13:25, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Andy, I took a look at the economics test and you're right; I would most likely fail it spectacularly. I took exactly one economics course in college as a requisite for my major, and that was eight years ago. Economics was not one of my disciplinary concentrations and economics on the whole does not inform my current occupation. In the same vein, if I asked you to write an interdisciplinary paper on gambling in the US from the perspectives of anthropology, sociology and geography I would not expect you to produce an A level paper. Plus, I'm not really sure what that test has to do with the issue in question.

As for the drug thing: drugs are (in excess) bad for you, there's no question about that. Alcohol can kill you if you have too much of it. Crack can very easily completely destroy someone's life. Heroin is an instant overwhelming addiction. Marijuana will make you eat way too many potato chips and think that bad cartoons are REALLY funny. But while these things are bad for you, so are many other things. McDonalds. Smoking. Extreme sports. Listening to Cher. But we give people the freedom to do these things, even while they are bad for them, because that is the essence of true freedom. I don't think drugs should be any different. The smart people will stay away from them anyway. And we'll be saving so much money on a "war on drugs" that has no hope of ever actually winning (why would the DEA want to actually eradicate drugs? The DEA are bureaucrats; they will always want to maintain their budget and continue their operations and if they ever actually eradicate drugs they are out of a job) that we could fund some actually useful programs for once. Just a thought.--Porthos 13:51, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Porthos, thanks for taking test, but I don't agree with your excuse. Economics is basic. Very basic. So is logic, which underlies it. The passage of time illustrates a problem with public school: even kids who pass the test are clueless a year later. They forget everything. Not true for the kids who take my classes, other kids outside the school system. I gave my economics test to students who took the course 3 years earlier. They did just as well. They didn't forget everything.

You left how a key point about marijuana: it's addictive. It turns the addicts into morons. Idiots think cartoons are very funny also, you know.--Aschlafly 14:28, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

• Porthos, we call what you are saying "relativism". It is yet another Liberal trick to marginalize something by comparing it to other things/actions/ideas. Your ideas about the DEA are an illogical fallacy. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:05, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

<{{>Template</}}>

Let's inject a bit of reality into this. These are statistics about how well homeschoolers did on the SAT compared to how other high school grads did. This is from the "Home Schooler Legal Defense Association" website:

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200105070.asp

Home School SAT Scores for 1999 and 2000

Home School Legal Defense Association recently asked The College Board, publisher of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), if they could tell us how home schoolers were doing on this college preparatory test. The following information is excerpted from the College Board's May 2, 2001 fax.

The College Board only has data on home-schooled SAT-takers in the high school graduating classes of 1999 and 2000.

The numbers and percentages of home-schooled SAT takers has risen slightly in those two years:

In 1999, 3,116 of 1,220,130 high school graduates with SAT scores (0.25 percent) said they were home-schooled.

In 2000, 5,663 of 1,260,278 high school graduates with SAT scores (0.45 percent) said they were home-schooled.

In 2000, the group of home-schooled SAT takers also had higher SAT averages:

The average SAT scores of home-schooled students were 568 Verbal and 532 Math, above the

national averages of 505 Verbal and 514 Math.

Among home schoolers---men's scores were 568 Verbal and 554 Math (vs. 507 Verbal and 533 Math nationwide); and women's scores were 568 Verbal and 513 Math (vs. 504 Verbal and 498 Math nationwide).

Males were 46 percent of both the home-schooled and the national SAT populations, and women comprised 54 percent of both populations.

The home schoolers scores were on average better than the other students taking the test but not incredibly better. There might be a lot of reasons why home schoolers do better that we can't tell from this comparison. Do home schoolers tend to come from higher income families or families with parents that have higher education levels? Are home schooler more frequently from caucasian families? Do caucasian families generally have higher incomes?

This site http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQincome.htm#I looks at SAT scores by income, race, gender and ethnic groups. Income and race have a big bearing on SAT scores.

This site describes who homeschools http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/HomeSchool/chara.asp The conclusion is that people who home school tend to have 2 parents at home (and one parent that does not work), large family size and parents with higher education.

The book "Freakonomics" has a section that deals with what factors mean the most for a childs educational achievement and the factor that stood out was the parents educational achievement. Wismike 15:02, 17 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

If economics is so 'very basic', then why are you so proud of your students for learning and remembering it? I'd be surprised if the average person could calculate price elasticity of demand or draw a Laffer curve without having taken an Econ class. Either your students are smart and you're a good teacher, or the material is very basic; I think it's the former, eh? Fuzzy901 15:07, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

• Nice you could drop in, Fuzzy, after all these months, to contribute positively. Godspeed. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:33, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Just a follow up, it's not clear that home schoolers do better that public schoolers with similar socio-economic backgrounds, still no one should deny that drug abuse is a problem in our society and in our schools. Certainly many people use legal and illegal drugs in moderation and live generally healthy, productive lives but everyone has to agree that many people abuse legal and illegal drugs and it ruins their lives. I've seen it. I am a liberal. Rising drug use in our schools probably has many causes. Along with other approaches, perhaps some greater emphasis on living a moral life can help combat it. Wismike 16:10, 17 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

I agree with you. I would call myself a "moderate conservative" but I find myself thinking in more and more libertarian ways of late. Drug and alcohol abuse is a major problem, but I think it is fair to make a distinction between use and abuse. I also think that prison is not the best way to deal with people whose only crimes are drug use/possession. I think if someone is caught with a few ounces of weed, they are better served by drug counseling than they are with a jail term. Now, if someone is caught with fifty pounds of weed, that's obviously trafficking and that's a whole different matter. Drug abusers should be given treatment, drug dealers should be given jail. And that's pretty much how it's done in most places.--Porthos 16:30, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

How can you claim that an act of vandalism against wikipedia proves that it is biased? --Tim (CPAdmin1)^talk 16:27, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Because it's convenient. I think the allegation that some have is that the vandalism was somehow 'approved' just by its very existence - and it wasn't, smears of Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken alike were reverted. Fuzzy901 16:51, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

This has already been covered above. --JonathanDrain 18:26, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I read an article in the Washington Times about how some liberals (or "knaves", in general) use anonymous sources to launch false media attacks.

The false report about the Koran being flushed (turned out to have been flushed by a Muslim) sparked deadly riots. The false claim that President Bush had weaseled out of many National Guard obligations (a forgery) - and luckily, it ruined the career of Dan Rather, the liberal anchorman who frequently departed from straight reporting and engaged in advocacy journalism.

Anyway here's the link if anyone wants to write about it or even just mention it briefly on the Main Page. [5] --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:36, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The front page report on schools testing students for steroids. It concludes with the 'novel' suggestions, to teach students that the use of steroids should be considered morally wrong and cheating. This doesn't seem novel, since the mere fact that schools test, shows that they want to convey exactly this to the students. It is better to omit the last sentence, because it suggests that the editor didn't read his own news item. Order 23:20, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Order, you speak in non sequiturs. Please see point #25 in the examples in Liberal Bias. The "mere fact that schools test" does NOT show that they "want to convey exactly" to the students that steroids is morally wrong and cheating. Testing conveys nothing about morality. Students who flunk a math test are not "bad" people. A moral point is not made by testing, but by making a statement about morality. When was the last time someone administered a test to you in church??? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:45, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

You can't compare a 'math' test with tests on 'steroids'. One is to test the knowledge of students, the other if a student did cheat. While the test by itself doesn't convey that using steroids is wrong - you are correct on this, it only tests for the presence of steroids - announcing tests does send the message that steroids are wrong, and it is obviously intended that way. The first article that is quoted on the front-page says it explicitly in the second paragraph [6].

It seems that "non-sequitur" is the word of the day. Can you explain why the absence of tests in churches implies that the teaching that using steroids is wrong cannot be accompanied by a test? Order 00:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

""At least right now, us as coaches, we can talk until we are blue in our face about not taking steroids, but until there is an actual system in place where you can actually get caught, peer-pressure is going to win in a lot of cases," Merritt said."" Aziraphale 01:31, 20 August 2007 (EDT) <-from the quoted article...

What statement did you try or disprove with this quote? Order 01:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Who said I was trying to disprove anything? I'm contributing to the conversation, at least in my opinion. The topic seems to be a lack of education in the schools. I feel like it can be inferred from the coach's comment that there is education, but it is being trumped by peer pressure. Aziraphale 01:47, 20 August 2007 (EDT) <-I'm on my own side now...

Thanks for the clarification. Order 02:04, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I live to give! Aziraphale 02:17, 20 August 2007 (EDT) <-no, really...

Feel free to archive this page anytime....if you have nothing to do! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 03:34, 20 August 2007 (EDT)