Talk:Conservapedia

Comedy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I propose including a section in this article about how the erroneous, bigoted articles that exist on Conservapedia (most of them) can provide a source of entertainment to casual, yet informed internet users. The site is not only for conservative bigots, but also serves as a great source of amusement for a plethora of other users. However, I lack the level head required to make such an addition without making it seem biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Others have had the same idea, the problem being that writing about what you find amusing about Conservapedia's bigoted articles would constitute original research, and so would not be appropriate for inclusion here. What's needed is a reliable source (a third-party account) detailing the general hilarity that ensues upon reading said articles. And you're unlikely to find such a source, because almost no one has written about Conservapedia other than at its founding; it's not on anyone's radar screen. - Nunh-huh 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC) It is now on everyone's radar, as Stephen Colbert just targeted it. Expect a plethora of third party references of its entertainment value within the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.142.14 (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC) it was on one of those Cracked lists a few months ago, but that's worth a passing mention at most, if even worth putting in at all. Meanwhile, the usual comedy/satire sites are available, and there's a whole website out there dedicated to laughing at CP. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Conservapedia! This is a joke right!?!?!? English Bobby (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I wish i could say yes.. see the "evolution" and "liberal" articles on their website.. have a good laugh. <tommy> (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC) there's a third party account of humourous conservapedia articles on rationalwiki. i could write one as well ;) 92.12.95.57 (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I found an article on Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/02/wikipedia.news But please, find some more, and stop this nonsense! It should be clearly stated on wikipedia, that conservapedia is a joke! 95.176.155.96 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC) No need, stating something is a 'joke' in any way is blatant bias, despite my personal convictions. Jacotto (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC) They will make a joke out of themselves, no need to state it in the article; besides, doing so, would not be appropriate. Tommy talk 02:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Conservapedia is a horrible website. They do not try to inform their readers of the truth, rather the ignorance of right wing fanaticals who want nothing more than to destroy America. If is ran by a bunch of whiny republicans who people are just getting sick and tired of hearing from. Why can't they move on and try to help America succeed instead of trying to hold us back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.83.134 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I don't agree with anything on Conservapedia but i don't think we should treat it as a joke. These people seriously believe this stuff. Let's not make this paragraph on Conservapedia about Wikipedia true "Wikipedia often treats conservative figures and sites with contempt, characteristic of the liberal double standard. Compare, for example, Wikipedia's smear of Conservapedia[14] with its straightforward description of Scholarpedia" However this is one of the most stupid things i have ever read on the internet "Alma mater normally refers to a college that a person actually graduated from. [28] However, at Wikipedia, the biography for co-founder Jimmy Wales prominently lists two colleges he didn't graduate from as alma maters. [29] Sean Hannity attended but did not graduate from NYU. Wikipedia does not list NYU as Sean Hannity's alma mater because he is a conservative" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashorrobin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC) {outdent} I hear you, but I must say I really, really dislike the tendency to edit this article-- or any other article-- in response to Conservapedia's criticisms of Wikipedia. If the people behind Conservapedia want a hopelessly biased polemic barely masquerading as an encyclopedia, that's their business. But for us to edit Wikipedia specifically to address their viewpoint and criticisms is to produce either a like copy or an equally biased "alternative"... neither of which passes the NPOV test. -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Factual Edits"

What exactly were Schafly's "factual edits" which were removed in 60 seconds and which inspired him to found Conservapedia (Because the Good Lord knows Western society needs more of a conservative, Christian, American bias) Library Seraph (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to ask such questions; however, to find out, I'd recommend looking at the edit history of the respective article, finding all the anonymous editors who have contributed to it, and check the location of the ip addresses using the appropriate tools. Finally, he lives in New Jersey, and thus those edits coming from New Jersey are likeliest to be him!--Leon (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"Conservapedia Commandments" and their usage.

Should the article clarify that the "Conservapedia Commandments" are not in effect at all, given an administrator's admission that administrators can ignore the rules whenever they feel like it? --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not until an independent source says so I'm afraid. It says so in the Wikipedia commandments. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

An administrator on the site says they ignore the commandments, which the article here on WP says the site adheres to. I would say that if someone of authority on the page says they ignore what Wikipedia says they adhere to, then the site Wikipedia uses for a source for the information for one way should also offer equal weight to the same site for the other way. In other words, why does WP reference CP to say they have commandments for how to edit, but not reference CP to say they refuse to uphold those same commandments? --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To a point I actually agree. I suppose the "commandments" are "official" in some sense, but I think that we can consider removing that reference. I am not an expert on the practical application of WP policy, but I'm aware that we're not supposed to cite primary sources in this fashion. IMHO, this article cites CP itself too often, what does everyone else think on this?--Leon (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that most of the commandments are almost never followed (at least the ones verifiability, citation, and opinion stated as fact) Wikipedia should not state that they are, only that they claim to adhere to them. Not sure hoe best to put this in the article. -R. fiend (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But in all cases that is OR, and thus I'm not convinced we should include them at all.--Leon (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would take issue with the false premise / false flag statement of the original post here. Setting policy below the CP Commandments, has nothing to do, and cannot logically be interpreted as, placing an Admin above those Commandments. The fact that this whole section was started by an Administrator of a known vandal site (according to the Los Angeles Times) gives one pause... --TK-CP (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The LA Times? But TK, according to Conservapedia, the LA Times is a liberal publication; and according to CP's article entitled liberal, "a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing". How fascinating that you seem to forget your own position on liberalism when it suits you and your agenda, either that or a CP article is inaccurate - which we all know will never happen. GrandLearner (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hardly see where arguing personalities or politics is germain or logical here. Either a bonifide media outlet said what it did, or it didn't. Since the journalist who wrote the story is highly respected, I assume the usual verifications took place. Even if all that wasn't so, it hardly excuses Administrators from a site dedicated to the denigration of another to use Wikipedia for their own ends, without disclosing to Wikipedia users and editors their agenda and connections. --TK-CP (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You want to talk about people using WP for their own ends and to push their own agendas? Well, suffices to say CP admins aren't entirely above that themselves, now are they? Shall we dig deeper, such as CP's difference with Wikipedia #15 that editors will not be blocked for their activities on other sites, only to be permanently banned from CP because they opposed Ed Poor's RFA? GrandLearner (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. -R. fiend (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And back to the discussion. Possibly the best move is to either entirely remove the section concerning the Conservapedia Commandments, or state that the Conservapedia Commandments are notional editing guidelines. It shouldn't be necessary to add anything more than that, notional seems to adequately describe the current situation without necessarily violating the OR rules.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How about: Editorial viewpoints and policies, para 1, sent 2 "Primarily, a set of policies known as the Conservapedia Commandments provides notional editorial procedures and guidelines which were designed to deal with such issues as bias and accurracy."?--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

But the commandments aren't notional; they're not used at all. One user recently at the site brought up the fact that a sysop there was not following the guidelines, to which TK stated unequivocally that the commandments are not followed. Why even mention them if an administrator for the site says they're not going to be followed? Strip them out entirely and avoid the issue altogether. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Late reply to above point, shoehorned in). Notional (as an adjective) can mean not evident in reality, hypothetical, imaginary, speculative or theoretical. At least one of those can be applied to the Conservapedia Commandments and their actual use by Admins.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"TK" stated no such thing, and only the most reckless stretching could turn what I said about Admins setting policy, into what you are now claiming. They are what they were made to be, the over-arching site guidelines. --TK-CP (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to a user pointing out that a sysop, Ed Poor, was violating one of the Conservapedia Commandments, you responded to this user with, "Administrators like Ed Poor and myself make the policy of CP, Matthew, as does Mr. Schlafly." The user made a very clear and concise case for the violation of the rules, and you overrode the rules by saying that Ed Poor's edits became policy. In effect, you did say, unequivocally, that the commandments simply are not in use. If they are in use, shall we expect that you, Ed, Andy and others will no longer post anything untrue, like your arguments that Fidel Castro is dead? Or cite what you use, when you plagiarized the Merry Christmas Neon image and burned anyone and everything which pointed out you plagiarized it? Or lacking in gossip, like how CP stated it was Hollywood Values that caused Brittany Murphy's death, not legally prescribed drugs that had a bad mix? Or getting rid of the personal opinion pieces of Andy stating that relativity can't be falsified, or that black holes are a liberal distraction, or that Fidel Castro is dead (this was so funny, I had to use it twice)? Or how you do more than 90% non-edits? If you claim the Conservapedia Commandments are the site guidelines, why are they simply never applied? Or as you said, what the administrators do becomes the policy, which renders the CC's void and should be removed from this article, as per the discussion. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

While your goal is apparently to turn Wikipedia into some sort of public tribunal about Conservapedia, that is against the rules here, and your comments lack logic in the extreme. You have the right to believe what you will, but to try and make what you say fact is without logic. I suggest if you have questions about CP that you email me, or another Administrator, and ask. That is what Admins at Wikipedia often do, so to say that using email is somehow irregular is not so. --TK-CP (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My goal is to make Wikipedia factual. The Conservapedia Commandments are not a set of guidelines used at Conservapedia, per your own argument that admins, not the CC, make the policies. Therefore, they should be stripped out of the article here to make the article better for users who read it. If you have an issue with this, can you spot any verifiable, third party link that shows that the CC are the guidelines that Conservapedia uses? If not, your admission on CP nullifies the CC link on CP, I'd say, and there's no further discussion needed that the CCs are not guidelines in use on CP. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sir, you are an Administrator at a known vandal site, recognized by third parties as being such. Nothing was admitted by me, either on CP or anywhere else, except in your own mind. The Commandments guide every Conservapedia user, including Admins. Since you cannot provide any third party link to show the Commandments aren't our primary rules, I have reversed your removal (without cause) of the Commandment portion of the story. Your own good ideas are just that, but hardly "proof" of any kind. As a vandal site administrator, I would think you, of all people, should be precluded from editing pages about your targets. Perhaps some Wikipedia Admin will also agree. --TK-CP (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the wording in the article is that the Commandments "guide" the project, I don't see any conflict here. The comment should stay in. If readers want to have this changed then they need to get a reliable source to actively comment on the lack of following of the Commandments. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that this statement should remain, although mentioning the Conservapedia Guidelines as a compliment to the Commandments might be helpful. The guidelines state "Administrators and Bureaucrats are the final authority as to policy and procedures. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed." Seems air tight to me. Keegscee (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the part about the guidelines. Feel free to revert/disagree. Keegscee (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I took out the part about the CC and the CG, since adding the CG is uncited. If one can use Conservapedia to source what they use for guidelines, then one should also use CP for TK's claim that the administrators set the policies, not the Conservapedia Commandments. The Commandments are explained later in the article, but to say they are the guidelines for the site is not factual, and should not be included in such a manner on this page. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

TK: I am not an administrator at a known vandal site. You edited a page about a site you are administrating. You stated specifically, when someone pointed out that another sysop on CP violated the Conservapedia Commandments, that the admins make the policies, thereby ignoring the CC. The page should reflect the factual nature of the CC, that they are not used. Further editing by you to this page for your POV will result in filing a complaint with your participation on this page. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's been similar disputes before, you know. And Arbitration Commitee had this to say: "Users who are current or past editors of Encyclopædia Dramatica are reminded of the vast policy differences between Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Dramatica and admonished to wear their Wikipedia hats while here." A common-sense rule, really, and one can imagine similar principle should govern all "vandal sites", not just ED... and also non-vandal sites like Conservapedia. Mind the local rules - there are vast differences in policies between wikis. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this discussion is about the Conservapedia Commandments and the alleged flaunting of them by CP's admins, perhaps TK, who has been defending the commandments would care to comment on his wilful breaking of Commandment 1 "Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or elsewhere unless it was your original work." As has already been proven beyond reasonable doubt (by other administrators on CP, such as Philip Rayment) you copied the UCLA article from Wikipedia. However, the best flaunting of the rule was when you uploaded "A Merry Christmas Neon", claiming it was self-made, when clearly it was not. You reaction, when people pointed this blatant plagiarism out to you was to block them, revert their comments and eventually deleted the talk page, citing "Deliberate creation of false article; lying." and thus proving that Conservapedia administrators are not above ignoring their own commandments.

Oh and don't buy into TK "vandal sites" crap. That just his talk for "people who point out my lies". --Psygremlin (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing how quickly TK deleted the Christmas image once you linked it. TK, if this blatant theft of material isn't an example of the commandments meaning nothing to the admins of your site, why not discuss it instead of trying to whitewash it an pretend it didn't happen? GrandLearner (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, wwwwolf. I am a sysop (not by choice) at RationalWiki. But I don't make policy there, don't have bureaucratic rights, and do little more than simply edit at the site. I have nothing to do with ED or any other wiki sites other than WP and RW. TK, however, is a member of RW and CP, and is an administrator, by his own signature on CP, at Conservapedia, thus his reversion on this page seems to fly in the face of the WP:COI guidelines here. I have been clear that I simply want this article to reflect facts, not the point-of-view Conservapedia wants to convey. If I were interested in pointing out flaws or issues with CP, as others have mentioned, the page would be far too long and would have too many POV entries.

As stated in this thread before, the article mentions the CC already. But to say they are the guidelines for posting at CP is just unfactual. If one uses CP as a source for one thing, it must also use CP as a source for the opposite. And if TK argues that admins make the policies, then that should reflect the facts of the project. It doesn't destroy the article, nor make the CC's go away in the article. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the reason why I referenced the Request for Arbitration was a bit unclear: The case was about an editor who was allegedly harassed on ED, and the Arbitration Commitee had to decide whether or not it was okay for people to act as editors on both ED and Wikipedia. The final decision was, as pointed out, that being an editor on ED is not an issue. In other words, being a member of vandal site is not an offence here as long as you remember to behave by Wikipedia's policies. No one gets banned here by that fact alone. The case had other ramifications that have changed later (e.g. whether or not it was okay to link to "attack sites" from Wikipedia), but this finding hasn't changed. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Hello everyone (if that is your real name),

I'm well aware of the allegations made at RationalWiki against Conservapedia admins with respect to plagiarism and abuses of power. However, there is really no point asking TK about this here. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that you'll get an answer on this talk page if he has already refused to give an answer on CP or via email. Secondly, there is no way of knowing for sure that TK-CP really is the CP admin. Thirdly, even if you do get an answer, we can only accept reliable, third-party secondary sources here... so you couldn't do anything constructive to improve the article as a result.

If you genuinely want to improve the discussions of plagiarism and admin actions in the article, then look for references in reliable media articles. If you just want to press TK for some kind of confession, then please talk, talk, talk about it at some librrull vandal site instead. Godspeed. ;) Papa November (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or this edit by Ttiotsw (talk · contribs): (rv, for us to compare the two policies is WP:OR. Find a WP:RS that says this.) How many comparison pages on Wikipedia might be deleted under such an interpretation of WP:OR? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points I think should be resolved

It appears as if there are several editors here who seem to have a conflict of interest who are editing. I don't mean any prejudice to TK-CP, but as he claims to be an administrator of Conservapedia, I don't think it is wise for him to actively edit this article. Similarly, there are a couple of editors who have identified on Wikipedia that they are members of RationalWiki, which is a site that is generally opposed to Conservapedia. I do not think these editors should actively edit this article either. I do not mean any prejudice to these editors as well.

As far as any allegations concerning Conservapedia, if it is not reliably sourced, it must be removed from the article and if it violates BLP, the revision should be requested deleted. Sourcing from either Conservapedia or RationalWiki is not reliable for this article.

My own personal opinion is I do not find any administrator on Conservapedia, aside from Andrew Schlafly, (or his or her actions) to be notable yet. This includes TK of Conservapedia.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum and please assume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks.

Lulaq (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that CP & RW editors should not edit the article - that would leave very few people to do so, given the obscurity of the subject matter. However, when RW or CP editors do work on this article, they should do so in accordance with WP guidelines, verifying all points from a reliable secondary source, as noted above. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article about Conservapedia isn't the place to pursue vendettas. It's for verifiable NPOV info about CP, & its talk page is for discussion of the article content only. Anyone editing the article who is a Sysop or Bureaucrat at another wiki with an ax to grind against Conservapedia, or who is a Sysop or Bureaucrat at Conservapedia should, in all fairness, disclose their positions up front, so other Wikipedia editors, sysops and the public can view their edits in context of their affiliation. That is why I disclosed my Conservapedia connection up-front, and have not actively edited the article, other than to reverse a change made by a Sysop from another site actively opposed to CP's existence.

Editors here at Wikipedia should not be pursued on their talk pages to answer for actions taken someplace other than on Wikipedia, and those are the rules of Wikipedia. --TK-CP (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

TK, yet you pursue vendettas. Arguing that someone's position elsewhere "at a vandal site" is also pursuing vendettas. You haven't disclosed your CP connection any more than others here have disclosed their affiliations elsewhere.

No one at RW wants to see CP go away; it's full of laughs and facepalmery. But for Wikipedia, the goal is to be factual and not present opinion or false pretenses in any article. I opened the discussion with evidence to support my case. You attacked anyone from RW and said they had a personal axe to grind, but never defended your position. The unsourced and untrue portion has already been stripped out of the article. If you want WP to state that the CCs are the true guidelines of CP, there must be a verifiable, unbiased source stating so (which would also mean that the CCs, not the admins' whims, should be the true guidelines).

Since you were the one who declared that the admins, not the CCs, set the policy at CP, it would be inappropriate for you to try to state otherwise here, or try to change the article. --IrrationalAtheist (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If talk pages are meant to discuss article content only (as it indeed happens to be the policy here), what does it matter who discusses the facts, and what does it matter what they do in their spare time? Either the facts people want to introduce to the articles fit Wikipedia's sourcing criteria, or it doesn't - who adds that information is completely irrelevant. This is incidentally why the conflict of interest policy doesn't prohibit editing in COI situations; if material is acceptable for inclusion, then it is acceptable for inclusion even if the editor who adds it has a conflict of interest. COI policy also says "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" - that is, if you're genuinely working to improve Wikipedia, your outside interests are of no consequence, but if your outside interests are stronger, then you darn well should disclose that fact. So people aren't required to reveal their affiliations unless they're clearly advancing their own interests and not Wikipedia's. Also, assuming good faith is policy too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people have 'pet interests' - and will develop the articles in those areas; and some people with strong viewpoints that could amount to COI #in particular areas# can be neutral elsewhere - or 'able and willing' to develop the articles in question without overly pressing their viewpoint.

Conservapedia is in 'the category of topics' which arouses strong viewpoints for and (several angles of) against - and the talk pages of which are likely to develop into discussion forums on the merits or otherwise of the subject and other editors, proponents and straw persons involved or assumed to be involved in the discussion, and 'a chorus of so what' among passers-by. Jackiespeel (Talk) 17:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages shouldn't develop into discussion forums about the merits or otherwise of the subject: they are discussion forums about the merits or otherwise of the article content. ωεαşεζǫįδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Bible Project section

I don't see why this section is included in an article on Conservapedia, instead of being in an article of its own (possibly with a "see also" link). Only toward the end of the section is the slightest (and it is slight, as of today) connection between the two mentioned (and it may be a mistake: "Conservapedia Bible"). It seems that somebody desperately wanted to say something about the CBP, but didn't have a better place to put it, so dumped it here. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it be because the project is part of Conservapedia? It's all being done on-site, it's not a separate project. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The CPB, in my opinion, is not important enough to have an article of its own. Having it as a section in the Conservapedia article is the perfect place. Keegscee (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

When CBP was first publicised, someone made an article about it. Someone slapped it with CSD A7. I merged it to this article because it's part of Conservapedia and edited by Conservapedia users; discussing it is appropriate in this article because that particular sub-project has gotten some media attention. Even so, it's a bit hard to explain why it would desperately need to be split into an article of its own in its current state. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to make more sense where it is. If it gets larger we can split it off but right now it is well within reasonable section size. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)