Talk:Conservapedia/Archive 9

Bias in Wikipedia

Here's the latest version of CP's list of alleged Bias in Wikipedia. Although I do admit some of the examples are pretty silly I also think some of them could be considered in improving WP factually or neutrally. The list also lists some errors of this article itself. Any suggestions? I've been on talk pages of homosexuality and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed discussing this matter too.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

They seem mostly to be complaints that we don't enforce Schlafley's opinions as rules. They're clearly not useful to us as a guide; if you find any of his points actionable, you should bring them up at the appropriate talk pages, rather than here. - Nunh-huh 05:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have gone to some talk pages as you've suggested and I stated earlier. I do admit that some of the items in the Bias page are just plain silly or based on ignorance. And then a lot of those items get quickly outdated; I guess that some of their claims are based on seeing unreverted vandalism... --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

But on the other hand, I defend the Examples list as a consequence of certain issues that the WP head honcho editors have frequently whined about (e.g. fancruft and those infamous trivia sections and "in popular culture" lists) - find their mentions of "the 100's of entries about silly TV shows and obscure rock n' roll bands" or something like that on the list. (P.S.: Also a consequence of the addition of original research in some instances [when they say "WP smears so-and-so with all this..."]) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually one of the things that Conservapedia is good for, helping WP. Ironic isn't it how we can become more critical of ourselves through them? Katana Geldar 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

Crankery notwithstanding, good point. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also today an editor removed the statistics stating the growth of the "Examples" list. Why? I don't see how it violates WP:NOR; it just states how CP sees bias in WP.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference demonstrating growth is to the current Conservapedia page, not to a 3rd party that has mentioned this. Comparing a 3rd party reference to something directly observed at Conservapedia is original research. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's essentially it. The article already has issues with citing Conservapedia directly, which, ordinarily would be original research. The only reason it's been overlooked to this point is because now Conservapedia has enough second and third party coverage to merit a stand-alone article. Blends in, in other words. However, present mistakes shouldn't set precedent for future ones. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When I added the stats, I first cited two tertiary sources stating that there were 40 items back in March 2007. I'm sure that CP's own Examples list is fine to state it's "grown" to 110 or so. If your logic is going to be how this page is to be run, I guess that 1 + 1 = 3, right? What's wrong with using only the primary source as simple proof of expansion?--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Are you referring to the Star as the third party source? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(I was that editor). Using primary sources to draw a conclusion is WP:OR. Find some reliable secondary source that shows that the list of bias in Wikipedia has grown (ideally one that correlates the page growths too given Wikipedia now has over 2 and a half million pages). Using Conservapedia as a source for something that they say on Conservapedia is not only using self-published sources but it is partisan too that doesn't represent a more global worldview. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now, the OR page here says that uses of primary source may not make any "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." I'd always thought it was an innocent factual claim that the list had 40 items (sources: The Star, Brent Bozell column) and in May 2008 about 110 (source: CP itself)...all I'm trying to imply is that there's an Examples of Bias in Wikipedia list on CP and how many items it has!

But I also see the point in including the correlation with the overall WP growth. I think we might be doing CP too much a favor by saying "110 items" solely based on their own stats. Thanks for your assistance. Is the conclusion here that the 110 items claim absolutely must be supported by a secondary source? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

Is there a place on this page for a section on how a lot of Conservapedia's articles were based on original research? In the past, it didn't seem too interested in having actual facts based on evidence. I remember the Australia page where it said that the country was populated by Eskimos and that kangaroos were a problem in Melbourne and Sydney CBD. (For the record, they aren't.)Katana Geldar 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless a citable source discusses the kangaroo and Eskimo problem, there really isn't a place for it in the article - after all, "no original research" is our tenet, not Conservapedia's. (Although it's really meant to be our way of enforcing "no nutjob theories"). We can't just list all the misleading or erroneous parts of Conservapedia; someone else has to do that, and then we can quote them. -Nunh-huh 05:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant about the kangaroos and eskimos, "nutjob theories" the lot of them. There is the article's history, but unless you want to act like conservapedia.... I just hope somehting will come up as anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all. Katana Geldar 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

On the contrary, by requiring secondary sources which state that Conservapedia includes nutjob theories, rather than evaluating them as nutjob theories on our own, we'll be acting like Wikipedia, not like Conservapedia. - Nunh-huh 08:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant by using such things. Katana Geldar 11:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana Geldar (talk • contribs)

Examples of bias in Conservapedia

How about starting a separate article titled Examples of bias in Conservapedia? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be easier to create Examples of neutral point of view in Conservapedia because I feel that the Examples of bias in Conservapedia is nearly all of Conservapedia. We would only bother with such things e.g. deliberate Google map obscuring, for notable source. Conservapedia is partisan and if it wasn't for the fact that it reads like a parody, I'd call it a hate-site. It's funny but I wouldn't give them the time of day. I looked at it thinking - maybe I could edit stuff (e.g. their article on the Euro gives the EURO-> sterling cross rate as 0.51 ...which is the cable rate i.e. US dollar to sterling ?. OK, small error and on Wikipedia I'd fix such a error in a flash but on Conservapedia it is very unclear what the copyright is (as an Open Source evangelist I actually read EULAs) and then there is the fact that it is ruled by Lord Aschlafly. Verily he projectile vomits whenever he cometh within sight of a liberal and it probably cometh out of both ends if he saw a liberal atheist such as I (even though I'm considered very right of centre by others who know me...I'm Liberal). Ttiotsw (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No, we are not in the business of grudges or retaliation, which is precisely how that will look. That's WP:ABF. However, I do believe that the Conservapedia article needs some more positive information (I know it's out there) to meet WP:NPOV. The article is doing pretty good, but it's a bit slanted at the moment. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV if you believe that it should result in an article that says equal numbers of "good things" and "bad things". NPOV should lead to an article that has good things and bad things in quantities roughly equal to their proportions in secondary source: in this instance, the appropriate proportion would be that found in press coverage of Conservapedia. Since that press coverage has been more or less uniformly negative, we don't have an NPOV problem here. "Knowing" that positive information is "out there" is different from it actually being out there. And if it has to be hunted down and sought out, the odds are that including it in this article would be to lend it undue emphasis. - Nunh-huh 07:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I assure you that I do not have any sort of misunderstanding of NPOV, and I am fully aware of WP:WEIGHT. I also did not say anything about a equity of content. The fact of the matter is that, while most coverage of Conservapedia has denounced them as parodic or smeared them as bigoted, it does not mean that we should ignore positive (likely right-wing) and laudatory statements. I should have made myself clearer. I'm not just surmising they're out there. I know it. I've read them. A lot of said press coverage resides on Conservapedia itself. I'm not defending the site, but I have a vested interested in maintaining this article in good standing, because as of right now it's horribly skewed in one direction. As an analogy, when a film is mostly panned, but receives positive reviews by a minutia/small number of critics, they are still mentioned. Do you see my point? Now, I could be bold and just add them, but I felt it obligatory to bring it here first. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's good to know that you recognize that the weight to be reflected in the article is not "good" vs. "bad" - your original comments certainly didn't reflect that. If you can actually find any significant commentators writing positive reviews of Conservapedia, of course they should be included. But you shouldn't lament the lack of such reviews when they don't seem to exist. Sometimes things are just bad, and it's appropriate for their articles to reflect that. If you ever encounter a positive review of Conservapedia again, be sure to note down where you found it. - Nunh-huh 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This alread exists but noting so is OR unless you can get Nature to publish such a claim or something. Sorry, eh? WilyD 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually both suggestions would likely breach WP:NOR. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin infighting

I have some links here of two "synops" plotting against their own cult website. It might be nice to write something about it.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Cheers. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, none of that is reliable. I could invent something close to that myself on my own computer, sorry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you think i found it? I was studying the edits of one of these synops involved, HE provided these links to Andy on his talk page. The guy owned up. I can provide a link showing the guy disclosed all this. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 07:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Still unreliable unless you have a reliable source who picks up on this. In the end it's just fringe gossip so unless it was the guy that runs the place was being dumped it's way too niche. Wikipedia isn't that liberal. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

WP has no place for that. Let Conservapedia concern itself with childish insults. The article here should be an encyclopedia overview of the website. Fishal (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

www.conservapedia.com/Social_effects_of_the_theory_of_evolution Social effects of the theory of evolution

Conservapedia has an article titled www.conservapedia.com/Social_effects_of_the_theory_of_evolution "Social effects of the theory of evolution". What about this joke article which says evolution is responsible for rise of Nazism ad racism? Should we include conservapedia's view in this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS. Only if it's reported elsewhere. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think something to that effect belongs here on the WP, certainly as a section or a subsection of Creation-evolution controversy! There is currently a large section devoted to that topic at Answers in Genesis#Morality and social issues, an article about a Creationist group.

CP's position on this issue _might_ merit a mention here, but we can't very well summarize every single CP article here on WP. "Kangaroo" has had enormous amounts of press coverage, so it certainly belongs here. Obama, maybe-- it seems to be generating a fair amount of off-site dialogue. But has "Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution" garnered any notice outside of CP itself? If not, I'd say it need not necessarily get a mention.

Fishal (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No as CP is in no way a reliable source by even the longest stretch of the imagination at this time. They may improve in time but right now it's way too partisan. On other matters,

• I get a bit suspicious on how traffic gets driven to CP links so I've nowiki'd the links.
• the question on the "Evolution" it has nothing to do with improving this article unless the controversy was bigger than the "Kangaroo". It isn't. The 'roo article is way more funnier.
• Are we to have to repeat this everytime someone sees some page on CP that is remotely related to some page on Wikipedia ? Ttiotsw (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's talking about reporting CP pages as fact! The talk was all about whether that particular article belongs on this particular page here. And I think consensus is that it does not-- that only the most notable articles (Kangaroo, etc.) should be mentioned individually. I had absentmindedly mused that the topic itself is a fairly common Creationist charge, and probably should be mentioned at Creation-evolution controversy. That's all. Fishal (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's handled at Objections to evolution#Objections to evolution's morality. As to the Conservapedia article, I note that most of its references are to the Institute for Creation Research, Human Events, and the like -- hardly WP:RS. I have yet to hear of any of these purported 'social effects of evolution' being substantiated by reliable sociological research. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

School prayer = necessary to conservatives?

I think this sentence seems a bit assumptive.

For example, its article "Liberalism" lists grievances over liberals' opposition to school prayer and other values important to conservatives.

The assumption is that school prayer is necessarily important to conservatives. Now, this is definitely from what I know personally, but if school prayer is in a top five list of issues important to conservatives, I'll eat my hat. Any objection to the following edit:

For example, its article "Liberalism" lists grievances over liberals' opposition to school prayer and other values Schlafly considers important to conservatives.

--Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely appropriate. It might be too cumbersome, but perhaps "school prayer and other values the website's community considers important to conservatives" would be more accurate, although from what I've seen Schlafly runs that site with an iron fist. But it is definitely true that the site uses a very specific definition of conservatism as its guiding principle. Fishal (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who added that sentence, I apologize for skipping NPOV there. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia and the truth

"The truth shall set you free" - but The Domesday Book covers parts of England not Great Britain - and Vladimir Putin's political status has changed.

What is the public opinion on their "Public Opinion" page (and whether it should be renamed "Public opinion"? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinfo page

The Wikipedia page has been copied to Wikinfo: as there are many "comments and opinions" here, appropriate critiques should be pasted there (which should resolve some of the issues raised here). Jackiespeel (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

CP not a good source?

Andrewlp1991 - why would an artical [1] describing CP's view about liberism not be sited here? Dinkytown (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because citing conservapedia directly is one step above a primary source, it's essentially original research. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After some thought I can see your point, though I might disagree with it. I either event, if someone wants to remove that and the attached sentence, feel free. I woun't dispute it. Take care... Dinkytown (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the idea that directly quoting anyone or anything (which was available in the internet or books/letters etc.) can be original research. Original research is if you present your one views or possibly if you present someone's views without quoting directly, not if you quote someone. Or does this rule (ban for direct quoting) applies only to Consevapedia? Jasra (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A good article will use quotes, and the quotes should be cited. Quotes can be used to illustrate and to enliven the text. They should not be used to prove a point or argue a thesis. So:

• Bad: "Conservapedia articles betray a misunderstanding of scientific evidence. It says, "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in theory of evolution." (cite, [2])
• Fine: "Conservapedia often favors creationism. It says, "The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in theory of evolution." (cite, [3])

The first example is bad because it interprets the quotation. The second example is fine because it uses the quote simply to illustrate a summarizing statement. The text summarizes the quote; it does not provide any new interpretation. At least, that's my take on the policy. Fishal (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, both your examples interpret their respective quotations. The second quote, which displays Conservapedia's ignorance of either the theory of evolution or of the fossil record (or both), doesn't favor creationism, though you have so interpreted it: it simply misstates facts about evolution (which is usually the method of creationists, but can be done by non-creationists as well). - Nunh-huh 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine PBTH. Change to "Conservapedia frequently questions the validity of the theory of evolution." I hope that's sufficiently nitpick-proof; now let's please discuss whether the general principle is sound. Fishal (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I'd say the general principle is unsound, it is a primary source and thereby commentary on it is original research; the advantage of secondary sources is that it avoids any unfortunate word usage by Wikipedians themselves, such as 'frequently' in your given example. Mallocks (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing. If we view Conservapedia as a primary source, then according to policy we can cite them as long as we have cited second and third party sources in the article (I'm doing this essentially from memory, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken). However, (and this is my view), if we do not perceive quoting Conservapedia as primary, then it's unsuitable as a reliable source and unacceptable to observe what they do and say and report it here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd contend that even at its best it tends to add an unfortunate smell of bias around the place. Not so long ago the page was a horrific example of unencyclopedic nit-picking, essentially a victory celebration over the comporable quality of Wikipedia. I think that allowing quotations directly from the site will only encourage users to seek out specific instances of what they percieve to be mistaken ideologies or theories and use this article page to exhibit them in a trophy room of sorts. Mallocks (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, you're taking it a step further. That's a different angle, but we are pretty much in agreement. It would tend to encourage editors to cherry pick from Conservapedia. However, my original comment was focused elsewhere. First we need to examine the definition of a primary source and determine whether Conservapedia falls under that category. For an analogy, Wikipedia states that a primary source is likened to a direct Witness of a car accident, however, what about the individuals involved in the car accident, which, in this analogy would be Conservapedia and their editors? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be a use of a primary source-- however, I cannot see how selective, illustrative quoting would be a bad thing, if done in moderation.

However, in this case I would agree that it's best to err on the side of caution-- you're right, many editors would simply compile a list of Stupid CP Quotes. Just to be safe, maybe quotes from CP should be limited to quotations that secondary sources have already quoted. E.g.: On NPR the interviewer read, "modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood." ([4] (audio), taken from [5])

It's a very involved question. I agree that "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic" doesn't really cover this case; I think that the policy wasn't created with the analysis of an alternative wikipedia style entity in mind. Mallocks (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) In an article about CP, CP is a primary source. Fishal (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well again to look at the quote from policy, CP isn't just close to the origin of this particular topic, it is the topic. Mallocks (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, anything that lacks a reliable source can be viewed as original research. Is Conservapedia a reliable source? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To determine that would, alas, be original research. Mallocks (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely somebody else has commented on Conservapedia in a secondary source and given quotations? We could just refer to them in the usual sense, thus avoiding the whole issue. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 07:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

NPR used the quote that I gave above. The issue, of course, is that CP is not static, and the quote they used then may not still apply. Fishal (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop me if I'm talking crazy talk, but I think it actually doesn't matter; we just report that "NPR said that Conservapedia said 'such and such'", and we're doin' fine as long as it otherwise meets sourcing requirements. They did say it after all; I don't think that later removing the text matters (might be worth a note to that effect if the removal was significant of something). You might look through Category:Wiki communities to see how other articles about wikis have handled this (presumably a common issue) if you're not convinced. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it a joke?

Is it a joke? When looking logo (flag of USA) and the picture it really sounds some kind on Niilo Paasivirta's own encyclopaedia, Niilopedia :) I believe some one can be seriously in that crap, but have anybody idea are some Conservapedists just trolling there? --Nappinenä (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In theory, it's not a joke, but Conservapedia attracts vandalism, parody and trolls (as does Wikipedia). In our article, we mention some of the vandalism issues CP has had. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Posted in an above section are (supposedly) copies of a private conversation between two admins who are secretly trolling in order to undermine the site. If that's true it may rank as human history's lamest conspiracy ever. Fishal (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh it is try, I could post further proof if needed but apparently no1 wants it in the article. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's pretty trivial, as well as Research at its most Original. But that doesn't make it any less funny :-) Fishal (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems some of their admins are tired of "Andy", some of them actually want to make an encyclopedia that has some credability. Will never happen, try getting through to him over the Obama article, its a joke. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

GA

With a bit of work it might be worth putting the article up for GA. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 05:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading WP:GA?, no. Many more articles much more worthwhile to spend time on. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for GA arent decided according to how notable they are, any article no matter how trivial its content can be recognized as a GA article. The fact that you dont like conservapedia has nothing to do with assessing the written quality of the article. Im not sure if you understand what GA actually means. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 07:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I agree with Ttiotsw. It would likely be a waste of effort to bring it up to GA standard, as the subject is going to continually attract vandalism and edit-warring, and it would fail the stability criterion. A GA review would stir up a hornets' nest of POV-pushers. Maybe once Conservapedia is dead and buried (soon, I hope!), then it might be possible to write objectively about it with a reasonable hope of stability. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I think it's reasonably stable and free of vandalism/POV pushing. Edit warring also seems to be quite minimal. There is nothing preventing it from reaching GA status if the article meets the criteria. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 08:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Its fine, if its such a problem, then the article needs semi protecting, many many many articles are GA and semi protected. The Michael Jackson article recieves much less vandalism than this because its semi protected. Its a GA going on FA hopefully. Seriously if stability concerns are stopping you from nominating the article that means you need it semi protected. Im not even sure it really is that unstable in the eyes of GA people. I really dont understand this "why even bother attitude", whats that all about people. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 08:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be attracting some vandalism soon. Conservapedia's been acussing Richard Lenski of fraud, and he's sent them a... shall-we-say... strongly worded reply. They might have bitten off more than they can chew here. Here's an off site link to it [6] (Do read it, it's brilliant). Jefffire (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing major, a shit storm in a tea cup. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that as a motto for Conservapedia. The affair is hitting the blogosphere at the moment, so if it garners the article more attention we'll be seeing it soon. Jefffire (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol it seems no more than ever could be the time for semi protection, but im sure we can handle it. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't think Wikipedia is really in the business of predicting what might happen. As it stands currently, the article is quite stable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. The issue I feel though is that given the volatility of the actual subject the Wikipedia article will need to alter frequently to match the reaction to whatever inane thoughts Conservapedia pulls out of its arse documents. WP:GA are 1 in 556 articles so people really have to care rather than care less and I couldn't care less about the topic but I'll not oppose any changes you want to make according to WP:GA?. Ttiotsw (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this to you, the Barack Obama article is FA and it kept its FA star even after he beat Hillary and it will remain listed as FA even if he becomes president I imagine. Its really hard to use instibility as a reason. We can start getting it up to GA standard then. Ill add the article to my ever expanding watchlist and come back tomorrow. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well we look forward to your edits. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I wouldn't want to be accused of this. Adding the occasional "we" helps avoid that. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know so far this article does meet GA criteria, as it is stable (as Wisdom89 earlier pointed out, other than the occasional liberal troll/vandal), well-written, reliably sourced, and actually is closer to NPOV than it was back in the original GA nomination. This article does contain criticism, but the article also gives space to explain what Conservapedia is. But I'd like to list a few more steps to take before listin' it up the Nominations Board:

• On the "Editorial Differences with Wikipedia" section, in the passage regarding Schlafly's March 2007 BBC interview, we should at least include Jim Redmond's rebuttal. If i recall correctly, among Redmond's defenses was the NPOV policy.
• Regarding the Young Earth Creationism viewpoints, I'd like to add also that CP supports the YEC viewpoint that humans and dinosaurs coexisted back in 4000 BC[E]. It's been mentioned in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article linked up on the "media mentions" box on the top of the page
• Their support for the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis - and the Peter Lipson debacle - should be under "Religion and Science" as a general viewpoint, rather than on the "reactions/criticisms" section.
• Schlafly's Kansas evolution hearings edits are sourced pretty dubiously - was it Andrew or his brother Roger? Roger (whose account is registered at User:Schlafly here) wrote about the edit war on his blog in January 2006. But the NY Times article credits it to Andrew. So I'm not sure what to do about it. Also see what happened for yourself in that article.

Otherwise, great job editors, and keep up your good work! --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I've decided boldly to list this article up for nomination! :) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW, ok, I was ment to look at it today but ive been sorting out loads of wikidrama so havent had time. Not to worry, it will be at least two weeks until our review comes around, plenty of time to go over any sharp edges. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you put it under computing? I think politics might be better? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, should be re-characterized. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I will go recharacterize it, it has almost nothing to do with computers on the grand scheme of things. It would be much better for an expert on politics to review it than someone with a degree in computing. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DONE — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But I thought I was supposed to file website articles under the "computing" section! If the website is specifically politically-oriented then it goes under "politics" instead? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article has nothing to do with computing, it has everything to do with politics. Its not the end of the world though. Its best to get the article up to scratch, im formatting sources now. Im down to #40. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I get it now; I'm thinking that the same actions would be done if the articles for the political sites Democratic Underground, Free Republic, The Huffington Post, or Politico were ever nominated as Good Aritcles --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (P.S.) Keep in mind though that CP isn't just a political site - remember it also covers religion deeply (hence its Conservative Christian/Creationist positions) --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion, conservatism, joined at the hip. I imagine the same would occur for the other sites yes. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 00:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lenski

Does anyone think the Richard Lenski debacle is worth mentioning?-Wafulz (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If it gets reported by outside sources, yes. Fishal (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lenski dialog - Recentism

There has been too much added on this episode, it is recentism in my opinion. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be. It's hard to just say "Schlafly badgered a scientist and got an angry letter in response". Any recommendations on what to cut out?-Wafulz (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably the small bottom paragraph is unwarranted, it just looks like conservapedia bashing. We dont need to get into how much coverage it recieved. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 18:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's too explanatory, just mention the experiment in brief (as it currently stands in the opening sentence), then briefly talk about Schlafly's challenge and Lenski's and Carl Zimmer's reaction. It just needs to be less verbose and more succinct. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did some pruning, let me know what you guys think. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Much better, do you mind If I archive some of this talk page, all the stuff before we started talking about GA? I hate scrowling. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You can archive any inactive discussions. I've rewritten the section to minimize direct quotes and to give a better context (the previous version didn't mention the requests for data, or that Conservapedia contacted Lenski). Also, Schlafly's name was misspelled a few times.-Wafulz (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it auto archives, I dont want to mess with it then. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 20:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Conservapedia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(original discussion here)

GA Passed YAY!!!

Wow, Im glad it passed, for some reason at the top there is a pass symbol and the old fail symbol still remains aswell. Ive never seen that before, is there a real need for the old one now?— Realist² (Who's Bad?) 16:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let Gimmebot handle it. Gary King (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I had no idea a bot fixed these things, cheers. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 19:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Robots are wonderful creatures :D Gary King (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, you have removed your slanted K again, :-) — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 03:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this will be permanent now :) Gary King (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Educational Website!?

Conservapedia is probably the last website I would expect in that category Kajillion (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It educates me about warped conservatism all the time, it's very educational. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Kaj, regardless of your opinion, the site hosts online course designed to inculcate students. The category is apt. I don't think it's appropriate to use this page to take a dig at Conservapedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is easily answered; has it won awards for being educational ? For example if we look at another example, e.g. Geometry_from_the_Land_of_the_Incas we say for that "The website has won several awards [1] from educational publications, including One of the Top 10 educational Web Sites Canada's SchoolNet's in 2003 [2], the Knot #284 Canadian Mathematical Society [3],....". OK, I'm not saying ALL our websites listed in that cat have that kind of reference but for a WP:GA we really do need to make sure that we have good references for what we're claiming. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be a poor quality education website, but it clearly IS an educational website. Assessments of worth are misplaced.--70.126.243.83 (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Says who ? You ?, Me ? Who are we ?. Unless we have a reliable 3rd party that says they are this then it sounds contentious so we have to remove it and it is for those that want this data back that have to justify the inclusion. Remember what makes a Good Article is that it is factually accurate and verifiable. How do we verify it is an educational website ? (Conservapedia itself isn't a good judge of this). Ttiotsw (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It says itself Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike., and has an Educational Index on its home page. The education it provides may be a bad one, but the intent of the site is to educate.
Kww (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's also in the category Online encyclopedias, which is a few levels below/within Educational websites. Should it be listed twice within the same nested category? 4Russeteer (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it should be listed in the most specific category. That will include it in the parent category as well. I'll take care of it.
Kww (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm sure that the rationale behind putting it in the parent category (Educational sites) was that CP claims to be more than just an encyclopedia; it also has "courses" you can take, I believe. That plus the fact that many of the articles were written as assignments by Schlafly's homeschoolers. Fishal (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kww. 4Russeteer (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Other conservatives

It might be nice to write about how other conservatives view it. Do they support it or is it a laughing stock to them too? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Might be nice to add some balance to the article with some support for Conservapedia, although WP:WEIGHT might be an issue. If it's few and far between, locate it and put it in, but we shouldn't spend too much time trying to create a 1:1 ratio if it's near impossible. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to try to create a 1:1 ratio: we should reflect the relative prevalence of favorable and unfavorable, not try to make them equal. - Nunh-huh 04:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically what I was getting at, yes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much thought you got it, as you cited WP:WEIGHT, but I hate to see 1:1 even suggested as a goal, as that's absolutely not at all a part of the NPOV standard, though many seem to harbor that as a misconception. - Nunh-huh 04:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracies in Conservapedia

We need to find a source that clearly states that Conservapedia contains factual errors if we're going to say it here. The last statement of the last paragraph of the intro currently (I'm about to change it) says that "The site has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias.", followed by a citation to an article that very clearly does not take Conservapedia seriously but falls short of explicitly saying that it has factual errors. If we're going to claim it in this article, it must be clearly and explicitly verifiable. I'm now going to change that statement to more accurately reflect what the cited article actually says. Oneforlogic (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this LA Times quote reflect factual errors or just bias? "Conservapedia’s critics [...] worry about material presented as fact in science and medicine entries that typically seek to debunk evolution, condemn homosexuality and raise fears about abortion." 4Russeteer (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say thats just bias. A factual inaccuracy would be if 10% of women died from having an abortion but Conservapedia used a really crap source that said 25%. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 11:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Realist. A factual inaccuracy is pretty self-explanatory. There needs to be a source that reports an abundance of factually inaccurate information. In other words, just plain wrong or misleading information - a statistic, a scientific precept, a definition etc..etc.. Although, I think Carl Zimmer has pointed these out with respect to science related information. That citation could be used if we reworded the lead sentence. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I imagine wikipedia has its fair share of factual inaccuracies. Its amazing how many talkpages I read where the person's birth date is in dispute. If you are looking for factual inaccuracies within conservapedia it might be better to look for examples outside of the field of science, politics & religion where it is hard to distingush between bias and factual error. For example, what does their article on bicycle say? Maybe they got the name of the inventor wrong? — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 22:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so Andrewlp1991 considered my former wording biased; it should be noted that the criticism is, by nature, anti-Conservapedia, and I think it's ok to reflect that here. He still did not address the issue that we don't have good citations yet for sources that directly accuse Conservapedia of factual errors; he reverted my edit to the old version that claimed we did. So, I've made the end of the intro even more mild. Oneforlogic (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I should've just used the "normal rollback" function...but I've added three citations for "factual inaccuracies" to address your concerns. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please be careful what you label as vandalism in the edit summary. Biased information/content is not considered vandalism by any stretch. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement looked so scary and suspicious in my opinion that I was compelled to hit the "vandalism" button. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the critics consider Conservapedia scary. I was simply reporting the viewpoint expressed in the Guardian article(#8), which I know from my own reading (I know, I really need to find some of these again and add them as citations) is a common viewpoint. Explaining the viewpoint of a verifiable source is consistent with WP:NPOV, so long as dissenting views, if they exist, are also explained. I believe we now have one factual error citation (#9), but we still need to be sure sources are very explicit about these errors if we're going to talk about them. Oneforlogic (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it turns out we did have a total of at least 3 sources that directly discuss factual errors on Conservapedia; two of them only appear on the factual inaccuracy claims in the body of the page. I've added them to the claim in the introduction, and I figure that takes care of the factual error citation issues. By the way, I'd never really thought about this much before, but the citation system Wikipedia uses sucks. I'll be looking for a discussion of this on the village pump, as the citations scattered throughout the page are really annoying to find and mess with. Do any of you know right off hand if there is a cleaner way to organize them within an article to be easier to find and modify? Oneforlogic (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Many folks seem to love this style of referencing. From a reader's viewpoint it's real simply (click the number to get the reference or click the "^" to get back to the point of reference). When editing a section, if you temporarily include <references/> you can see the references you're working with (remember to remove this before submitting the change). About the only realistic alternative (much less widely used here) is Harvard-style referencing, see Wikipedia:Author-date referencing. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Rick. Back on sources and such, does anyone know of a source that discusses Conservapedia's factual record favorably? I doubt we can find anyone who will claim that Conservapedia has no factual errors (that would be false, anyway, and I would refuse to add it to the article myself), but we could probably find an article in the conservative Christian press that at least claims something like "Conservapedia is as factually reliable as Wikipedia". To be clear, I'm not going all pro-Conservapedia here, I'm mostly trying to prove a point. If you search for my username on Conservapedia, you'll find that I offered to do this while being berated by Andrew Schlafly for being a biased, liberal Wikipedian, to prove the point that I harbor no hostility toward them. Does anyone here read the conservative Christian or evangelical press? By the way, has anyone been able to access Conservapedia in the last 8 hours or so? I haven't, and my internet connection seems fine... Oneforlogic (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. If it's near impossible to find, then WP:WEIGHT applies. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

True, Wisdom89, and good to keep in mind. I think reaching out like this would be a worthwhile reason to violate WP:WEIGHT, if only a couple sources can be found, but naturally if no one agrees with that, it won't happen. Also, false alarm on not being able to access Conservapedia. I suppose they were just having tech issues for a couple hours. Oneforlogic (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, only insomuch as "whats impossible to find" is a relative thing, especially when it comes to media that, while serving a fairly large audience, is rather insular, or not widely read by those outside of the community. For instance, if a large Roman Catholic magazine, or a Mormon periodical, were to discuss Conservapedia, I wouldn't even know where to begin to look, even though their readership or subscription base compared well to secular magazines. SiberioS (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also true and also good to keep in mind. I was also under the impression that several Christian publications, especially ones marketed to evangelicals in the United States, had many readers, which is why I proposed those as a possible source. I also know relatively little about such publications, which is why I have not found such a source myself. Oneforlogic (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Anyone want me to set up auto archiving for this page? Geoff Plourde (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, set at 7 days. Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please turn it off. The talk page is one of the few places where you can hear disparate opinions. Espeically those of the people who don't win the edit wars or are not in good with the admin cabal. There's really very little traffic on here anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 21:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RationalWiki

Where's the article on RationalWiki? It just redirects to this completely different page.

There isn't one, it lacks notability so isn't here. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors have claimed that RW fails WP:WEB as coverage of RW hasn't gone beyond comparisons with Conservapedia. I'll take it to WP:RFD. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How, exactly, is it "not notable"? I'd love to see justification for that claim. I've heard of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.72.73 (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that it only has notability in relation to Conservapedia, and therefore might deserve a paragraph at this article, but what more could be said in an article of its own, one might ask. I might disagree, however, looking at the veritable flurry of activity on that wiki... but again, I can't figure out what it does beyond criticize Conservapedia. Fishal (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. How about re-redirect the RationalWiki title to a section on the CP article regarding RW? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which section that would redirect to. As to the notability: RationalWiki isn't really mentioned in reliable sources outside a sentence or two, and it's usually about Conservapedia anyway. If you compare the traffic of the sites, you'll see they usually rise and fall at the same time.-Wafulz (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)