Jump to content

Conservapedia: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted good faith edits by Radioactive afikomen; Reverting to earlier version - it is reported as a possible attack as indicated in the source. (TW)
Line 23: Line 23:


===Licensing of content===
===Licensing of content===
Conservapedia allows users to "use any of the content on this site with or without attribution." However, the copyright policy also states "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Copyright&oldid=90435|title=Conservapedia Copyright|date=[[2007-04-06]]|publisher=Conservapedia}}</ref> Schlafly has indicated that Conservapedia has not adopted what he considers "Wikipedia's complex copyright rules," adding that Conservapedia "reserves the right to object to copying of its materials."<ref name=Aschlafly>Conservapedia. (2007). [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=12863#Copyright User talk:Aschlafly], February 4 version.</ref> Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] has raised concerns about the fact that the project is not licensed under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] (GFDL) or a similar [[copyleft]] license, stating that "People who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results".<ref name="The Star"/>
Conservapedia allows users to "use any of the content on this site with or without attribution." However, the copyright policy also states "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Copyright&oldid=90435|title=Conservapedia Copyright|date=[[2007-04-06]]|publisher=Conservapedia}}</ref> Schlafly has indicated that Conservapedia has not adopted what he considers "Wikipedia's complex copyright rules," adding that Conservapedia "reserves the right to object to copying of its materials."<ref name=Aschlafly>Conservapedia. (2007). [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=12863#Copyright User talk:Aschlafly], February 4 version.</ref> Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]] has raised concerns about the fact that the project is not licensed under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] (GFDL) or a similar [[copyleft]] license, stating that "People who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results".<ref name="The Star"/>


Conservapedia does not allow users to use Wikipedia content or mirrors as a reference, specifically listing the practice as a violation of its first commandment. The exception to this commandment is "It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue."<ref name="Conservapedia Commandments"/>
Conservapedia does not allow users to use Wikipedia content or mirrors as a reference, specifically listing the practice as a violation of its first commandment. The exception to this commandment is "It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue."<ref name="Conservapedia Commandments"/>

Revision as of 07:27, 27 January 2008

Conservapedia
Conservapedia logo
Type of site
Internet encyclopedia project
Available inEnglish
OwnerAndrew Schlafly
Created byVarious
URLhttp://www.conservapedia.com/
CommercialNo

Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a socially- and economically-conservative viewpoint supportive of American Conservative Christianity.

History and overview

Andrew Schlafly, the site's creator and son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, stated that he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.[1][2]

According to the site's FAQ, Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled children, who wrote most of the initial entries.[3] Schlafly has said that he hoped for the site to become a general resource for United States teachers and to work as a general counterpoint to the liberal bias he perceives in Wikipedia.[4][3] Conservapedia is not affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikipedia's umbrella organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, although both sites use the free MediaWiki software. In addition to its role as a Christian-Conservative encyclopedia, Conservapedia is also used by Schlafly's "Eagle Forum University" program. Material for various online courses (e.g., American history) is stored on the site.[5][6][7] Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum.[5]

As of 21 January 2008, the site estimated that it contained 21,261 articles.[8] Conservapedia's earliest articles date from November 22, 2006. [4][5][9]

Policies

Conservapedia's editorial policies are guided by Conservapedia Commandments.[10] Anonymous edits are not permitted; only users logged in to registered accounts can make changes to articles.[11] Articles are also blocked from edits for much of the night in the western hemisphere.[12]

Licensing of content

Conservapedia allows users to "use any of the content on this site with or without attribution." However, the copyright policy also states "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees."[13] Schlafly has indicated that Conservapedia has not adopted what he considers "Wikipedia's complex copyright rules," adding that Conservapedia "reserves the right to object to copying of its materials."[14] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has raised concerns about the fact that the project is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a similar copyleft license, stating that "People who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results".[3]

Conservapedia does not allow users to use Wikipedia content or mirrors as a reference, specifically listing the practice as a violation of its first commandment. The exception to this commandment is "It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue."[10]

Conservapedia and Wikipedia - editorial conflicts

When it launched its online encyclopedia project, Conservapedia asserted the need for an alternative to Wikipedia due to editorial philosophy conflicts. Its Conservapedia Commandments differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, No Original Research and attribution.[15][16][17] In contrast to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated that "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader."[9]

Religion and science

Many Conservapedia articles support the Young Earth creationist point of view.[5][9][18]One example of article content differences is the subject of evolution. Conservapedia presents evolution as a scientific theory lacking support. It asserts that creationists, creation scientists and some secular science journals state that evolution is in conflict with the majority of evidence,[19] whereas Wikipedia presents the mainstream viewpoint that evolution is an observable biological process explainable by scientific theory.[20][21] Conservapedia also criticizes the theory of relativity, suggesting that academicians who question the theory suffer for their beliefs.[22]

Conservapedia's article states that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark.[23] Schlafly defended the article as presenting a valid alternative to evolution.[24] Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb."[4][25][26][27][28][29] An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention, a page which Schlafly has asserted was intended as a parody of environmentalism.[26] As of March 4 2007, the entry has been deleted.[30] Science writer Carl Zimmer points out that much of what appears to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory can be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile.[31] On March 19, 2007, the British free newspaper Metro, ran the article Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes articulating the dismissal of Conservapedia by the Royal Society (The British academy of science), saying "People need to be very careful about where they look for scientific information."[18]

English Wikipedia's policy allowing both CE/BCE and AD/BC notation[32] has been interpreted as anti-Christian bias.[25][33]

Politics

Another example is Wikipedia's article on the Democratic Party, which refers to the party's historical origins. Schlafly has claimed this is an "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson" and that it is "specious and worth criticizing."[9]

Patriotism

Conservapedia interpreted the policy allowing both British English and American English spelling[34] as anti-American bias[citation needed], and originally maintained a policy that only allowed for American spelling on the site[citation needed]. Conservapedia's logo, which appears in the top left hand corner of every page (where the Wikipedia logo appears on Wikipedia pages), uses the flag of the United States.

Andrew Schlafly on Wikipedia

Schlafly said,

"Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob." [35]

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian newspaper, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds — so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."[4] On March 7, 2007 Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that many Wikipedia articles use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly.[36] Schlafly has asserted that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public" (a claim which has been referred to as "sensational"), a calculation which does not use a solid statistical basis.[37] [3]

Reactions and criticisms

Creationism, conservatism, and bias

Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales says that he has no objections to the project stating "free culture knows no bounds" while acknowledging that sites such as Conservapedia are directly in line with Wikipedia's goals, [38] though he has denied Schlafly's claims of bias on Wikipedia.[3] The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism by the general public for factual inaccuracies[39][40] [27][41] and factual relativism.[27] Conservapedia has also been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from the perspective of creationism.[26]

Tom Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about religion than conservatism and that it "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia [than Wikipedia itself.]"[3] Its scope as an encyclopedia is limited: According to the founders, it "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[42] APC magazine reports this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[43]

The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting relativism with the false dilemma that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts."[27]

Conservapedia and dissenting views

Conservapedia's sysops quickly delete dissenting views added to its articles. In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, attempted to edit the article on breast cancer to include evidence against Conservapedia's statement that abortion raises a woman's health risks, but found his medical credentials being questioned by the site's sysops, and Schlafly himself. His edits were deleted, and Schlafly and the other administrators ended the debate by blocking Lipson's account.[44]

Attacks

After being blocked for his edits, Lipson and several other editors started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they monitor and comment on Conservapedia, and - by their own admission - coordinate vandalism of Schlafly's site.[44][45] Wired magazine reported that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers."[46] Iain Thomson, writing in Information World Review, has written that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[25]

In November 2007, Conservapedia's homosexuality pages were listed as the most visited on the site, although this was thought to be the result of an automated click bot attack.[47][48]

External links

References

  1. ^ Siegel, Robert (2007-03-13). NPR "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-07-26. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  2. ^ "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia". Conservapedia. 5 June 2007.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Chung, Andrew (2007-03-11). "A U.S. conservative wants to set Wikipedia right". The Star.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ a b c d Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-01). "Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ a b c d Template:De icon "Conservapedia: christlich-konservative Alternative zu Wikipedia". Heise Online. 2007-03-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "American History Lecture One". Conservapedia. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  7. ^ "Eagle Forum University". Eagle Forum University. 30 April 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  8. ^ "Conservapedia statistics". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2007-11-27.
  9. ^ a b c d "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-03-15.
  10. ^ a b "Conservapedia Commandments, Conservapedia (21 March 2007)
  11. ^ Conservapedia login requirement
  12. ^ Conservapedia curfew
  13. ^ "Conservapedia Copyright". Conservapedia. 2007-04-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). User talk:Aschlafly, February 4 version.
  15. ^ "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (21 January 2007)
  16. ^ "Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia (21 March 2007)
  17. ^ "Conservapedia: Attribution, Wikipedia on Conservapedia
  18. ^ a b "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes". Metro. Associated Newspapers. 2007-13-19. Retrieved 2007-03-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. ^ Conservapedia. (2007).Theory of Evolution. Retrieved March 9.
  20. ^ "Introduction to evolution, Wikipedia (17 March 2007)
  21. ^ "Evolution, Wikipedia (19 March 2007)
  22. ^ See Conservapedia's article.
  23. ^ http://www.conservapedia.com/Kangaroo
  24. ^ Robert Siegel (March 13, 2007). "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". NPR.
  25. ^ a b c Thomson, Iain. (2007). "Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia 'bias'". Information World Review, February 28.
  26. ^ a b c Calore, Michael. (2007). What Would Jesus Wiki?. Wired Magazine, February 28.
  27. ^ a b c d the notion "that there's always a second, equally valid interpretation of the facts." Clarke, Conor. (2007). "A fact of one's own".The Guardian, March 1. Cite error: The named reference "Clarke" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  28. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Kangaroo". February 23 version.
  29. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Theory of Relativity". February 22 version.
  30. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus". Retrieved March 4, 2007.
  31. ^ Zimmer, Carl. "Sources, Sources"
  32. ^ Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
  33. ^ Lewis, Shelley. (2007). "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Wikipedia's War on Christians, Patriots". Huffington Post, February 23.
  34. ^ Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
  35. ^ Wired [1] Accessed November 6, 2007
  36. ^ "Today programme". BBC radio. 7 March 2007 8:16am. Retrieved 2007-04-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  37. ^ Mackey, Rob (2007-03-08). "Conservapedia: The Word Says It All". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  38. ^ Biever, Celeste (2007-02-26). "A conservative rival for Wikipedia?". New Scientist.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  39. ^ Read, Brock. (2007). "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing" Chronicle of Higher Education, March 2.
  40. ^ Mackey, Rob (2007-03-08). "Conservapedia: The Word Says It All". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  41. ^ Snide Remarks The Offical Website of Eric D. Snider Accessed October 5, 2007
  42. ^ ECT: Conservapedia Retrieved on 2007-8-20
  43. ^ Wikipedia vs Conservapedia APC Magazine Accessed October 5, 2007
  44. ^ a b Stephanie Simon (2007-06-19). "A conservative's answer to Wikipedia". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-11-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  45. ^ RationalWiki. (2007). "Conservapedia",
  46. ^ Wired Magazine Blogs Accessed November 6, 2007
  47. ^ "Top ten most viewed pages on Wikipedia and Conservapedia". Boing Boing. Retrieved 2007-11-22.
  48. ^ "Conservapedia, Homosexuality, and pranked statistics". Infothought (Seth Finkelstein). Retrieved 2007-11-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=187206054"