Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wikipedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(article)
(article: You wanna article? Okay, stand back and let the fur fly!)
Line 226: Line 226:
 
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems".  And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
 
Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems".  And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
::It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.
 +
 +
::But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.
 +
 +
::I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.
 +
 +
::But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 15:03, 26 March 2007

Sources

If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point. Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. Jrssr5 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..." How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"? (What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --Sandbagger 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [1] --Dave3172 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--Elamdri 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. User:treeman 12:22, 11 March 2007

"Controversy"

This page was unlocked to add facts, not alleged bias. There is an entire article about the alleged bias, it doesn't go in here. The "controversy" section is about bias. Additionally, parts of it apply only to the English Wikipedia, NOTHING is sourced, and the source I consulted right now suggests that the whole "Americans are majority" bit is wrong. Unless there is something incredibly important I'm missing here (say so!), I'll delete the section in a few minutes. --Sid 3050 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm for deleteing it right now. Anything that can be written here can also be written on the bias article that already exists.MatteeNeutra 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
To appease those who insist wikipedia is biased, maybe we should include a link to Examples of Bias in Wikipedia in a "see also" section. Otherwise content like this will just keep reapearing and being deleted. MikeA 16:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Done, and the link had already been added by the time I got there. --Sid 3050 16:22, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
There does not seem to be an article on wikiality.com, as a big proponent of truthiness, and gut thinking, I would consider adding this to the UNBIASED conservapedia.

"A large percentage" of homosexuals

C'mon. How many? Out of how many?

Wikipedia has 3,834,720 registered user accounts, of which 1,147 (or 0.03%) have administrative privileges, by the way.

And what does it mean to be a "supporter of homosexuality?" Is a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supporting" homosexuality, for example? Dpbsmith 13:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

" and given by example are Sodom and Gommorah, who having gone after strange flesh, suffered the vengence of eternal fire. RightWolf2 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Please, please do not use the story of Sodom and Gommorah as anti-homosexual support, since the story had nothing to do with that. --Dave3172 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Touch not mine annointed, and do my prophets no harm. RightWolf2 13:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Have you ever read the story, Dave? The story does in fact have to do with homosexuality. --<<-David R->> 13:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I have, extensively. The story is not about homosexuality, but about hospitality. When the mob is described in the KJV, they are "both old and young, all the people from every quarter." The original Hebrew is anshei ha'ir, anshei S'dom, or the people of the city, the people of Sodom. Which means women and children were present, not a homosexual mob.
Further, remember that Lot offered the mob his daughters in exchange. If the men of Sodom were homosexuals, he would have known this and not offered up his daughters to them. He'd have offered up his son-in-law's, which he had the right to do under the customs of the time.
But most tellingly are the words of Ezekiel - (Ezek. 16:49-50) "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Nowhere does it mention homosexuality.--Dave3172 13:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
So, does that mean that a company that says it does not discriminate against gays "supports" homosexuality? Dpbsmith 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What's wrong with using actual numbers?

I said that

Of approximately 3 million Wikipedia editors, about 250 of them [2] have posted on their user pages statements that they identify themselves as "gay."

RightWolf2, I've given the basis for both of these numbers. If you have better sources for the actual numbers, please cite and use them. If not, don't fall back on weasel words like "some" or "a large percentage." Dpbsmith 13:41, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Bias against homosexuality

This article seems to have a very strong bias against homosexuality. The section about "Wikipedia and Homosexuality" is longer than the rest of the article. Furthermore, can anybody tell me why the homosexuality of "Essjay" it is of relevance to this article? --QuestionMark 13:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It isn't. Dpbsmith 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I assume it's the attempt to make Wikipedia look as bad as possible without repeating things from the Bias list. It should also be noted that most of these things most likely only refer to en.wikipedia, but that's not exactly new (see Bias article again) --Sid 3050 13:50, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Check the history and the edit comments. It appears that I am a "liberal gay rights activist" because I wanted a source citation for what critics, specifically, talk about Wikipedia as having a "gay cabal," and because I prefer to say "250 Wikipedia editors" rather than "some" or "a large percentage" identify themselves as gay on their user pages. (Incidentally, just for the record... when I checked I counted 226, which I rounded up, and 3,834,720, which I rounded down.) Dpbsmith 13:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert multiple times

This is directed at user RightWolf2 Would you please discuss such enormous changes before simply reverting to your pov? Menkatron 14:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I like your changes. Too many plants here from Wikipedia. RightWolf2 14:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

"Like conservipedia"

"Like Conservapedia, it is a wiki that is written and edited by its users."

Since Conservipedia is pretty much a rip of Wikipedia, is it in any way honest to use wording that would lead one to believe that conservipedia is a more established wiki than wikipedia? Opcn 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

RightWolf2, please back up your statements

Being Conservapedia doesn't mean that any opinion can be stated just because it's conservative.

With regard to:

Conservative critics of Wikipedia have commented the site appears to be dominated and misused by the homosexual movement as a propaganda vehicle for promoting homosexuality.

well, fine, but please cite a source so that any reader can judge for themselves what they think about these "critics," and see whether you've summarized their views fairly.

With regard to:

The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community

I personally have no idea how one would even begin to go about finding such a thing. Please give a basis for this statement. Dpbsmith 16:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd leave him be, this article is hilarious! JamesK 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

RightWolf2, you gave http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ as a citation to back up the statement that "The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community." However, that link goes to a page that contains neither the word "homosexual" nor the word "gay." Please provide a specific link to the page supporting the statement. Dpbsmith 16:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
This may be the cite he was refering to. http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html RobS 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, it is pretty funny

RightWolf2, your latest edit gives the impression that you are counting "Heterosexual Wikipedians," "Male Wikipedians" and "Female Wikipedians" as homosexuals. (The cited source is [3]). Dpbsmith 16:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Secret Revelations

I am a top-level administrator on one of the several non-English versions of Wikipedia. I can confirm that your concerns on severe liberal bias are indeed correct, as they have dogged Wikipedia from the very beginning of the project.
As a conservative, it felt that it was tougher in getting an admin position. As such, I have dedicated over 80 000 edits in removing all forms of bias against Western and Eastern civilization. Also, I made it easier for people to get to know christianity.
Several left-wing associations seem to influence on the organization of Wikipedia. Groups of freeware developers, members of the rationalist zetetique, libertarians in general, European socialists and American democrats, even anarchists, communists and freemasons seem to have a greater hold than the average conservative editor.
To deliver us from the utter control of sects, I am very pleased that you have begun the Conservapedia project. My prayer goes out to your very best success. Knight

Dpbsmith

This page is very interesting.

Wikipedia Page for this user

RightWolf2 17:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This editors comments in this article are also interesting. Conservapedia RightWolf2 17:03, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


In response to the change from editor to user, I support using the term "editor." If I look up something on wikipedia, I use it. If I edit something on wikipedia, while I am using, more specifically, I'm editing it. But that's just my two cents. ColinR 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I decided the most accurate language is "people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts." I just changed it to "Of the people who have registered Wikipedia user accounts, 226 (as of 14th March 2007) users have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual." Before anyone jumps on top of me, notice that I removed the percentage calculation, which I think is silly, and put the total number of such accounts into the footnote. Here's the diff in case anybody gets confused about who changed what. Dpbsmith 18:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
How about, "226 have outed themselves". RobS 18:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Instead of "have chosen to place a marker on their user page identifying them as homosexual?" Sounds like an improvement to me. Dpbsmith 19:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Meanwhile... with regard to the statement that
"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community based upon materials posted to Wikipedia Watch,"
I still would like to know where this material is posted, since the linked page does not contain it. Or should the statement read something like this:
"The Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee, and number of site adminitrators contain a disproportionate number of homosexual members in comparison to demographic percentages within the Wikipedia Community, according to comments made in IRC chat groups on the Wikipedia Watch website"
Dpbsmith 18:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Nice, I like the change in language. ColinR 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Mandatory Banning of Homosexual Wikipedia Editors

I would propose a mandatory ban of any Wikipedia editors who edit this site and have placed themselves in the homosexual category as these editors are inconsistent with Conservapedia's goals. Allowing them to edit here will bring this project under God's righteous wrath and doom it to failure. I will start a page on suspected homosexual editors infiltrating this site from Wikipedia. They should be banned on sight.

They should be identified and purged, along with all of their edits.

put away the unrighteous from among thee, for neither liars, nor murderers not fornicators, nor adulterers, nor sodomites shall inherit the kingdom of God, for without are dogs (homosexuals).

-- from the bible

RightWolf2 19:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this one of those liberal parodies that is occasionally pointed to? --Mtur 19:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


Maybe we can put pink triangles on their user page while we're at it...God forbid someone out of the mainstream have a POV...--Dave3172 19:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think these are good ideas. It is nice ot have a place on the web not beng infiltrated by the homos**ual agenda.--Raytrotter 19:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Ugh...please try to recognize sarcasm...--Dave3172 19:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
If I recall correctly, there have been serious requests to forbid non-conservative editors from editing article content. It gets kinda hard to distinguish parody and serious cases after a while. --Sid 3050 19:53, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
This is either a good work of sarcasm, or a bad idea. This is Conservapedia. Not anti-gayapedia. While mainstream conservative ideology condemns homosexuality, there are conservative homosexuals. If their edits fit in the commandments and are good edits, why should their sexuality matter? Censorship based on sexuality will just lead to other censorship. ColinR 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And several homosexuals I know consider themselves Christian Conservatives. The basis for editing is following The Conservapedia Commandments. I would hate to see the point of a Wiki abolished just to exclude a certain group of people. --Hojimachongtalk 20:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


I have edited the page, sorry if I have overstepped the mark on my first hour on sysopts, but this comment on Homosexuals in Wikipedia is propganda if nothing else. B Republican

No worries. I can certainly understand not wanting to offend anyone at Wikipedia, particularly the homosexuals too much. I certainly hope not all of this sites articles are given the same treatment. RightWolf2 03:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ooops! Hatered against minorities is comming up? .... Paiting triangles to the talk page of people who are different? .... Hmmm... that reminds me to somewhat? Whom was it again who got a star sticked to the chest about 70 year ago? And who were this men doing that? Where they good or evil? Oh, now I remember: It was the Jews. The nazis were putting the Jew-Stars on their Chests. Is Conservapedia going to be a Nazipedia? If so, please tell so. Because then I will have to fullfill my duty as a good son of good and have the website reported to the national authorities. --Itsjustme 08:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Encyclopedic Content & Gossip

I'm struggling with Aschlafly's definition of these terms when he insists on keeping this text in the article. --JamesK 10:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Fully agreed. I tried to at least lessen the unencyclopedic gossip in the next edit, but in my eyes, the part I left in is not really needed. The cited article doesn't say who said those things or how many people argued against it. It could've been some random troll or vandal who made those statements. --Sid 3050 10:33, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Another protection used to prevent actual debate.-AmesG 11:43, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I begin to feel a slight resignation. --Sid 3050 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, JOY. I got the article locked. Good God, this is so incredibly stupid. But fine, whatever. *cough*

Andy, I promise not to touch the Wikipedia article anymore. AT ALL. I would like to apologize for removing the unencyclopedic, wrongly cited, and misrepresented gossip you call "factual material".

There. You won. Could you now unlock this thing so people can add more gossip factual information? --Sid 3050 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Done. But remember to follow site policy when editing it.
The various official Conservapedia pages say:
  • We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts.
  • Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia. Many entries read like the National Enquirer.
  • We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
  • Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
  • Everything you post must be true and verifiable.
Now... keeping that in mind, I ask you to consider a few things:
  1. "Were Wikipedia editors apologetic? No, Wikipedia editors savaged Seigenthaler afterwards on a Wikipedia talk page for publicly criticizing the falsehoods about him"
    • Show me how this is not gossip or the style of the National Enquirer.
    • Name a few encyclopedias that follow the "Did they do that? Noooo, they didn't!" form.
  2. "The Siegenthaler scandal was originally billed as a 'hoax', then 'controversy' and finally downgraded in its stable version to 'incident'."
    • Quick, point to the source.
  3. "Despite the damage to an innocent person and embarassment to Wikipedia's credibilty as a viable source"
    • Same as (1): Show me an encyclopedia that would write in that style.
  4. "the Siegenthaler scandal is considered by many internal Administrators as 'the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia'"
    • Check the source. How many people consider this "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia"? How many of those are admins? Note how the guy who started that talk section (and thus coined the phrase) does NOT appear to be an admin.
    • When you have the number of admins that say this statement (or at least agree with the general motion), compare it to the total number of admins. Would you call the resulting ratio "many admins"?
  5. "catapulting the slander factory"
    • Check the source. Tell me where it says "slander factory". I was unable to find the term in the cited source AND the article the source discusses.
    • Assuming that the term is Andy's own brainchild, explain to me how it's encyclopedic and not gossip.
  6. "from the top 50 to the top 10 most visited websites"
    • Quick, point to the source.
  7. [quoted news article snippet]
    • The newspaper article apparently quotes TWO editors. Which ones? Were they admins? Well-established editors? Random trolls? What was the reaction to those statements?
    • The "typical comment" bit is the opinion of the journalist and is not proven or sourced in the quote or the article here. Slight clash with the opinion/fact rule and the first point I quoted in the box above, isn't it?
This is why I removed the two last paragraphs in my first try. In my second try, I left in the news quote and rephrased the intro sentence for it so it doesn't sound like the National Enquirer. I ask you now who stuck to the site rules and who did not.
But like I said: I won't touch the article anymore. And assuming that you actually took a few minutes to look into the points I mentioned, you would understand why I'm extremely bitter right now. Your "remember the rules" bit is only adding insult to injury.
But thanks for the unlock. :) --Sid 3050 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Larry Sanger

It's embarassing to note that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is called Larry Sangers right in the first sentence -- can someone please correct this? It seriously damanges the credibility of the entry. Boethius 11:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

No it doesn't. --JamesK 11:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know about you, but when I see factual errors and typos in the very first line of an encyclopedia entry, I am skeptical of what follows -- how much care has been taken, I wonder to myself .... Boethius 11:52, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I think what James is saying is that the entry has little credibility any way. At least, that's how I interpreted it. Myk 11:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah -- well, if that's the case, then I agree Boethius 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, yes, I'm always concise :) Sorry if it was rather terse. --JamesK 11:59, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, he's not exactly a co-founder. There's a bit of controversy about that. And I'm a big fan of his. Better to say that Larry Sanger has been called a "co-founder" but that Jimbo says Sanger was not one. --Ed Poor 15:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it's a nice, clear polar disagreement. Sanger, or rather Citizendium's FAQ page, calls him "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger." Dpbsmith 16:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Unprotected. Fixed Sanger's last name.
Not sure if I was correct to move 'pornographic' to a note. It's a borderline thing. I wouldn't let a 12-year-old boy see his portal, so I'm inclined to call it port - but then again, I'm of the "if it makes you sin pluck it out" school of thought. ;-) --Ed Poor 15:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If Sanger and Jimbo disagree, then we should say that they do. Is Sanger still making an issue of it? --Ed Poor 17:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's the chat logs when Wales first brought it up. [4][5] RobS 15:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

article

Wasn't this article re-created to put information about wikipedia, not have it be a list of "problems". And wouldn't some of this be considered gossip under the Conservapedia Commandments? Jrssr5 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah. So? *shrugs helplessly* --Sid 3050 16:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
It's probably okay to begin by listing problems. After all, Conservapedia is a conservative wiki-response to Wikipedi's liberal bias and all around chaotic nature.
But, yes, this a chance for us all to write an objective article on Wikipedia. We needn't apply NPOV here, I assume. And since I'm user #188 at Wikipedia, I have a treasure trove of memories working with it for 5 1/2 years.
I climbed up from the bottom, to Developer, Admin, and "first elected bureaucrat" - then slipped down the same ladder to "on probation for tendentious edits". I co-sponsored the first ever North American meeting of Wikipedians with Jimbo in Boston, used to run the mailing list, etc. *yawn* Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt.
But what is the world's 30th most popular website doing for us all now? --Ed Poor 17:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)