Jump to content

Conservapedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ezeu (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 9 April 2007 (AfD was "speedy keep"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Conservapedia
File:Conservlogo2.png
Type of site
Reference / Wiki
Available inEnglish
OwnerAndrew Schlafly
Created byHomeschooled students[1]
URLhttp://www.conservapedia.com/
CommercialNo
RegistrationUnavailable

Conservapedia is a conservative, wiki-based encyclopedia project whose articles are pro-U.S., socially conservative and supportive of conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism.[2][3][4] The project was founded in response to an alleged liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias in the articles of Wikipedia.[5]

According to their FAQ, Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled children, who wrote most of the initial entries,[6] and its creator believes it could eventually evolve into a "reference for teachers".[2] In addition to its role as an encyclopedia, Conservapedia is also used by Andrew Schlafly's Eagle Forum University. Material for various online courses (e.g., American History) is stored on the site.[3][7][8] Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum.[3] Andrew Schlafly has stated that he hopes that the site becomes a general resource for United States teachers, and works as a general counterpoint to the liberal bias he perceives in Wikipedia.[2][6] Conservapedia is not affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikipedia's umbrella organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, although both sites use the free MediaWiki software.

Conservapedia's earliest articles date from November 22, 2006. Its content can be used free of cost, under a re-use license that is in development but not yet formalized.

Conservapedia and Wikipedia

Differences in editorial philosophies

Conservapedia stated a need for an alternative to Wikipedia as it launched its online encyclopedia project because of editorial philosophy conflicts. Conservapedia's editorial policies are guided by Conservapedia Commandments, while Wikipedia's editorial policies are guided by neutral point of view (NPOV) and attribution.[9][10][11]

Conservapedia Commandments[9]

  1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources.
  2. Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain.
  3. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
  4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
  5. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages.
  6. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.

Wikipedia Core Content Policies[10][11]

  • Neutral Point of View: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
  • Attribution: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

Wikipedia core content policies allow Wikipedia editors to cite Conservapedia and any or all Conservapedia references as Wikipedia sources under the appropriate article if the content is authoritative in relation to the subject at hand or is derived from credible published material.[10]

One example of article content differences stemming from editorial philosophy conflicts is evolution. Conservapedia presents evolution as an incorrect interpretation of measurable and observable evidence, phenomena, and claims that all living organisms were created in their current form.[12] Whereas, Wikipedia presents evolution as a biological process defined by observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[13][14][15]

Another example is Wikipedia's article on the Democratic Party referring its historical origins. Andrew 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."[4] In contrast to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality Schlafly has stated that "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean lets take a point of view, lets disclose that point of view to the reader." [4]

The policy of English Wikipedia to allow both CE/BCE and AD/BC notation,[16] and both British English and American English spellings,[17] are also interpreted as "anti-Christian" and "anti-American" bias, respectively.[18][19]

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."[2] On March 7 Andrew 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.[20] Conservapedia has asserted that, "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."[21]

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."[22]

Wikipedia founder[23][24][25] Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project.[26] "Free culture knows no bounds," he said.[2] Wales denied Schlafly's claims of bias on Wikipedia.[6]

Criticism

The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for alleged factual inaccuracies[27] and factual relativism.[28] Conservapedia has also been compared to Creationwiki, a wiki written from a creation science perspective.[29]

Critics, such as libertarian conservative writer Andrew Sullivan, satirist blogger Jon Swift,[30] science writer Carl Zimmer, and others, have criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy, extremism, hypocrisy, bias, and ignoring the scientific consensus on subjects such as the Big Bang and evolution in favor of biblical exegesis.[29][31][32] Widely disseminated examples of Conservapedia articles that contradict the scientific consensus include the claims that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark, and that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb."[2][18][29][28][33][34] 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.[29][35] As of March 4 2007, the entry has been deleted.[35] Schlafly also defended the Kangaroo article as presenting a valid alternative to evolution.[36]

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.]"[6]

The policing of articles is accomplished by Andrew Schlafly himself, and 30 additional sysops. [37] Throughout March of 2007, this small group had numerous problems preserving the creationist viewpoint of Conservapedia, since the majority of the dedicated editors and administrators of the site disagree with their goal of censorship of non-creationist viewpoints, and edit accordingly.[38]

The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting the notion that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts."[28]

Iain Thomson, writing in Information World Review, has written that some people who object to Conservapedia's stated conservative Christian mission may have been creating deliberate parody entries in an attempt to ridicule the widespread use of Christian scripture as a source for Conservapedia articles.[18]

Recently, the British urban free newspaper, "Metro", ran an article on Conservapedia, to bring it to the attention of the wider British public. The article attacked the many alleged lies and half-truths regarding Wikipedia, science and religion presented on the site.[39][clarification needed]

Richard incident

In late March of 2007, one of Conservapedia's sysops revealed himself to be a parody, a fake persona created by "soon-to-be-former-Republican" Andrew C. Oliver.[40] Oliver created the editor "Richard" (after former US president Richard Nixon) and wrote an article praising Warren Harding as "one of our greatest presidents" (whereas in his regular persona, Oliver called Harding "at best corrupt and at least woefully incompetent"). This article was praised by site founder Andrew Schlafly, and "Richard" was promoted to the status of sysop. Continuing to push the parody, "Richard" wrote an article lauding Jesse Helms, frequently praised former senator Joseph McCarthy, and finally set up a list of suspected liberal Conservapedia editors in homage to McCarthy's own Communist-sympathizer lists. The administration detected "Richard" as a parody after an online confession,[40] after which he was de-sysoped and banned.[41]

Licensing of Conservapedia content

The project is not currently licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar copyleft license, an issue which has led to some concerns.[6] Schlafly has stated that "We support broad reuse of our material in a manner similar to Wikipedia." A proposed final version of the copyright policy says that the license is "revocable only in rare instances of self-defense".[42]

Conservapedia does not allow users to copy content from Wikipedia, specifically mentioning the practice as a violation of its first commandment.[43]

References

  1. ^ http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About
  2. ^ a b c d e f Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-01). "Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ a b c Template:De icon "Conservapedia: christlich-konservative Alternative zu Wikipedia". Heise Online. 2007-03-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ a b c "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-03-15.
  5. ^ http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
  6. ^ a b c d e 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)
  7. ^ "American History Lecture One". Conservapedia. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  8. ^ "Eagle Forum University". Eagle Forum University. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  9. ^ a b "Conservapedia Commandments, Conservapedia (21 March 2007)
  10. ^ a b c "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (21 January 2007)
  11. ^ a b "Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia (21 March 2007)
  12. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). Theory of Evolution. Retrieved March 9.
  13. ^ Isaac Newton (1687, 1713, 1726). "[4] Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Third edition. The General Scholium containing the 4 rules follows Book 3, The System of the World. Reprinted on pages 794-796 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages.
  14. ^ "Introduction to evolution, Wikipedia (17 March 2007)
  15. ^ "Evolution, Wikipedia (19 March 2007)
  16. ^ Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
  17. ^ Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling), Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
  18. ^ a b c Thomson, Iain. (2007). "Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia 'bias'". Information World Review, February 28.
  19. ^ Lewis, Shelley. (2007). "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Wikipedia's War on Christians, Patriots". Huffington Post, February 23.
  20. ^ "Today show". BBC radio. 7 March 2007 8:16am. Retrieved 2007-04-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ^ 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)
  22. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). User talk:Aschlafly, February 4 version.
  23. ^ Mitchell, Dan (December 24, 2005). "Insider Editing at Wikipedia". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-27.
  24. ^ Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-27.
  25. ^ Mehegan, David (February 12, 2006). "Bias, sabotage haunt Wikipedia's free world". Business. The Boston Globe. p. 4. Retrieved 2007-03-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ Biever, Celeste. (2007). "A conservative rival for Wikipedia?"New Scientist, February 26.
  27. ^ Read, Brock. (2007). "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing" Chronicle of Higher Education, March 2.
  28. ^ a b c 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).
  29. ^ a b c d Calore, Michael. (2007). "What Would Jesus Wiki?"Wired, February 28.
  30. ^ Swift, Jon. (2007). "Conservapedia"
  31. ^ Zimmer, Carl. (2007). "Sources, sources", The Loom February 21.
  32. ^ Sullivan, Andrew. (2007). "Conservapedia?"The Atlantic Online, February 24.
  33. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Kangaroo". February 23 version.
  34. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Theory of Relativity". February 22 version.
  35. ^ a b Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus". Retrieved March 2, 2007. Cite error: The named reference "Conservapedia: Octopus" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  36. ^ Robert Siegel (March 13, 2007). "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". NPR.
  37. ^ List of Conservapedia sysops
  38. ^ See, e.g., the Theory of Evolution Talk Page, especially the "Vote" section, expressing this majority.
  39. ^ "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)
  40. ^ a b Oliver, Andrew C. (2007-03-27). "Having a little fun with Conservapedia". Retrieved 2007-03-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  41. ^ "Block log for Conservapedia user Richard". 2007-03-27. Retrieved 2007-03-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  42. ^ Aschlafly, Geo.plrd (2007-04-06). "Conservapedia Copyright". Conservapedia. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  43. ^ http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Conservapedia_Commandments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=121539840"