Jump to content

Conservapedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Malcolmxl5 (talk | contribs) at 02:52, 15 July 2007 (rm AfD tag. Discussion closed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism.[1][2][3] Andrew Schlafly stated he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.[4][5]

According to the site's FAQ, Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled children, who wrote most of the initial entries.[6] Its creator, Andrew Schlafly (a son of noted conservative Phyllis Schlafly), has said that he hopes the site becomes a general resource for United States teachers and works as a general counterpoint to the liberal bias he perceives in Wikipedia.[1][6] 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 an 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.[2][7][8] Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum.[2]

As of June 2007, the site estimated that it contained about 11,000 articles. Additionally, the site had 9,000 registered usernames of which about 4,000 were permanently blocked.[9][10]

Conservapedia's earliest articles date from November 22, 2006.

Conservapedia and Wikipedia

Differences in editorial philosophies

Conservapedia stated a need for an alternative to Wikipedia when it launched its online encyclopedia project due to editorial philosophy conflicts. Conservapedia's editorial policies are guided by Conservapedia Commandments, while Wikipedia's editorial policies are guided by a range of policies including neutral point of view (NPOV) and attribution.[11][12][13]

Conservapedia Commandments[11]

  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.
  7. Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account. Advertisements are prohibited

Wikipedia Core Content Policies[12][13]

  • 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.[12]

One example of article content differences stemming from editorial philosophy conflicts is evolution. Conservapedia presents the theory of evolution as lacking support and states that creationist scientists and some secular science journals state that it is contra-evidence[14] whereas Wikipedia presents evolution as a biological process defined by observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[15][16][17]

Another example is Wikipedia's article on the Democratic Party, which refers to the party's 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."[3] 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."[3]

English Wikipedia's policy allowing both CE/BCE and AD/BC notation[18] has been interpreted as anti-Christian bias.[19][20] Conservapedia also interpreted the policy allowing both British English and American English spellings,[21] as anti-American bias and had a policy that only allowed for American spelling on the site. However, their policy against allowing British spellings was later revised.

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."[1] On March 7, 2007 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.[22] Conservapedia has asserted that, "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."[23]

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."[24]

Wikipedia co-founder[25][26][27] Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project.[28] "Free culture knows no bounds," he said.[1] Wales denied Schlafly's claims of bias on Wikipedia.[6]

Reactions and criticisms

The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies[29] and factual relativism.[30] Conservapedia has also been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creation science perspective.[31]

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."[1][19][31][30][32][33] 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.[31] As of March 4 2007, the entry has been deleted.[34] Schlafly also defended the Kangaroo article as presenting a valid alternative to evolution.[35] 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.[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 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."[30] (See also false dilemma fallacy)

On Monday, March 19, 2007, the British urban free newspaper, Metro, ran the article Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes. The article ridicules Conservapedia for providing only one side of controversial content.[37]

Conservapedia, and more specifically its article on homosexuality, was discussed by Lewis Black on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on June 27th, 2007.

Iain Thomson, writing in Information World Review, has written that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[19] Stephanie Simon, writing in the LA Times, reported that:[38]

After administrators blocked their accounts, Lipson and several other editors quit trying to moderate the articles and instead started their own website, RationalWiki.com. From there, they monitor Conservapedia. And — by their own admission — engage in acts of cyber-vandalism. Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire.

Licensing of Conservapedia content

The project is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a similar copyleft license, an issue which has led to some concerns.[6] Instead, 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."[39]

Conservapedia does not allow users to copy content from Wikipedia (or use Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirror sites as a reference[40]), specifically listing the practice as a violation of its first commandment.[11] Wikipedia permits copying of its content only by sites that have adopted the GFDL license.[41]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-01). "Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ 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)
  3. ^ a b c "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-03-15.
  4. ^ NPR, "Conservapedia founder Andy Schlafly says the new site is an alternative to Wikipedia and what he deems to be a liberal bias."
  5. ^ "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia". Conservapedia. 5 June 2007.
  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. 30 April 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  9. ^ "List of blocked IP addresses and usernames". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
  10. ^ "Conservapedia Statistics". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
  11. ^ a b c "Conservapedia Commandments, Conservapedia (21 March 2007)
  12. ^ a b c "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (21 January 2007)
  13. ^ a b "Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia (21 March 2007)
  14. ^ Conservapedia. (2007).Theory of Evolution. Retrieved March 9.
  15. ^ 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.
  16. ^ "Introduction to evolution, Wikipedia (17 March 2007)
  17. ^ "Evolution, Wikipedia (19 March 2007)
  18. ^ Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
  19. ^ a b c Thomson, Iain. (2007). "Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia 'bias'". Information World Review, February 28.
  20. ^ Lewis, Shelley. (2007). "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Wikipedia's War on Christians, Patriots". Huffington Post, February 23.
  21. ^ Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
  22. ^ "Today programme". BBC radio. 7 March 2007 8:16am. Retrieved 2007-04-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  23. ^ 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)
  24. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). User talk:Aschlafly, February 4 version.
  25. ^ Mitchell, Dan (December 24, 2005). "Insider Editing at Wikipedia". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-27.
  26. ^ Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Sanger says he co-started Wikipedia". ABC News. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-27. The nascent Web encyclopedia Citizendium springs from Larry Sanger, a philosophy Ph.D. who counts himself as a co-founder of Wikipedia, the site he now hopes to usurp. The claim doesn't seem particularly controversial - Sanger has long been cited as a co-founder. Yet the other founder, Jimmy Wales, isn't happy about it. — Brian Bergstein.
  27. ^ 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)
  28. ^ Biever, Celeste. (2007). "A conservative rival for Wikipedia?"New Scientist, February 26.
  29. ^ Read, Brock. (2007). "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing" Chronicle of Higher Education, March 2.
  30. ^ 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).
  31. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Wired was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Kangaroo". February 23 version.
  33. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Theory of Relativity". February 22 version.
  34. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus". Retrieved March 4, 2007.
  35. ^ Robert Siegel (March 13, 2007). "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". NPR.
  36. ^ Zimmer, Carl. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/02/21/sources_sources.php
  37. ^ "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)
  38. ^ Stephanie Simon (2007-06-19). "A conservative's answer to Wikipedia". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-06-19. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  39. ^ "Conservapedia Copyright". Conservapedia. 2007-04-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  40. ^ http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jimmy_Carter&diff=113225&oldid=113214
  41. ^ "Resers' rights and obligations=[[2007-05-09]]". Wikipedia. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)

See also
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=144720665"