Jump to content

Conservapedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.239.153.176 (talk) at 03:07, 23 August 2008 (→Lenski dialog: this is a heavily biased statement that cites to a blog that mostly uses the fringe humor site "Rationalwiki" as its source - thus fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV with flying colors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

Conservapedia
Conservapedia logo
Screenshot
File:Conservapedia Main Page.PNG
Conservapedia's Main Page
Type of site
Internet encyclopedia project
Available inEnglish
OwnerAndrew Schlafly
Created byVarious
URLhttp://www.conservapedia.com/
CommercialNo
RegistrationOptional (required to edit pages)

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric, socially conservative, and Conservative Christian point of view. It was started in 2006[2] by lawyer and history teacher[3] Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. He stated that he founded the project because he felt that the open-source web encyclopedia Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.[4]

Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia, some of whose policies Schlafly feels contribute to bias. For example, only users logged in to registered accounts can make changes to Conservapedia articles.[5] Primarily, a set of policies known as the Conservapedia Commandments guide editorial procedures on the site on such issues as bias and accuracy.[6] Additionally, articles and other content on the site frequently includes criticism of Wikipedia as well as of liberal ideology.[7]

Reception of the site has been generally negative, particularly in the form of accusations of bias and inaccuracy.[8][9][10] Conservapedia has also been seen as part of a trend of conservative- and Christian-themed Web sites imitating mainstream ones.[2][11]

History and overview

Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly

Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled, high-school-level students in New Jersey[12][3] by Schlafly, a social studies and economics teacher for the Eagle Forum University educational program.[13] He felt the need to start the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred.[14] Although he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast", as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly became concerned over perceived bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.[15] Schlafly has expressed hope that Conservapedia becomes a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceives in Wikipedia.[16][7]

The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's organization Eagle Forum, uses material for various online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.[17][18][19] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.[19]

The site uses the free MediaWiki software originally created for Wikipedia, but is not affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikipedia's umbrella organization, the Wikimedia Foundation.[17][2] The site's earliest articles date from November 22, 2006.[16][17][4] As of August 2008, the site estimated that it contains over 25,000 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.[20] Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include a daily-selected Bible verse[14] and links to news articles that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.[21] The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion, history, and politics.[22][23] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages,[7] which, at one point, was the most-viewed page on the site.[6]

Word about the site rapidly spread throughout the blogosphere around early 2007.[24] Schlafly appeared on programs of the radio networks BBC[25] and NPR[4] to discuss the site around that time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program The Hour for the same purpose.[26]

Editorial viewpoints and policies

When he launched the online encyclopedia project, Schlafly asserted the need for an alternative to Wikipedia due to editorial philosophy conflicts. The site's "Conservapedia Commandments"[27] differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include following a neutral point of view[28] and rules against original research.[29][30] 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",[4] and that "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."[24]

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."[16] 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 Wikipedia articles apparently prefer to 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. Redmond argued that Wikipedia attracts contributors worldwide and so must use CE notation to be more neutral, since CE notation, in his opinion, has only a nominal, not numerical, difference with the AD format. He also cited the Wikipedia policies regarding citation of sources and cooperation with other contributors as basis for allowing any factual information to be added.[25]

Religion and science

Many Conservapedia articles support the Young Earth creationist point of view.[17][4][9] Its article on evolution presents it as a scientific theory[31] lacking support and conflicting with much evidence in the fossil record that creation scientists perceive to support creationism. The entry also suggests that sometimes the Bible has been more scientifically correct than the scientific community.[32] In contrast to the mainstream viewpoint, Conservapedia's article on the kangaroo states that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark.[33] Schlafly had defended the statement as presenting a valid alternative to evolution.[4] Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb."[34][35][24][8] An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention, Schlafly has asserted that the page was intended as a parody of environmentalism.[24] As of March 4, 2007, the entry has been deleted.[36]

Another scientifically-rejected point of view that Conservapedia is known to support is the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis.[10] 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 linking abortion as a major cause of the disease but found his medical credentials being questioned by Schlafly and other Conservapedia administrators, all of whom ended the debate by deleting Lipson's edits and blocking Lipson's account.[14] Consequentially, Lipson and several editors started a rival website, Rationalwiki, from which they monitor and comment on Conservapedia. Some members of RationalWiki have admitted to having vandalized Conservapedia.[14][37]

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.[38] 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."[9]

The English Wikipedia policy allowing both Common Era and Anno Domini notation has been interpreted as anti-Christian bias.[35][39][40] In July 2008, American Prospect editor Ezra Klein highlighted part of the Conservapedia article on atheism in his weekly column.[41]

Political ideology

Many Conservapedia articles criticize values that its editors associate with liberal ideology.[42] The Conservapedia article about liberalism lists grievances over liberal opposition to school prayer and other values that the editors consider important to conservatives.[43] Another article titled "Professor values" alleges that most college professors are liberally biased.[44] Schlafly said in an interview with National Public Radio that Wikipedia's article on the history of the Democratic Party is an "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson" and that it is "specious and worth criticizing".[4] John Cotey of the St. Petersburg Times observed that the Conservapedia article about the Democratic Party contained a criticism about the party's support for same-sex marriage and associated the party with the "homosexual agenda".[45] The Conservapedia entries on prominent Democratic senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama[46] and Hillary Clinton[14] are critical of their respective subjects. Its entry on Obama also asserts that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action"; Brian Murphy of the Ohio State University student newspaper The Lantern called that statement "idiotic and despicable".[46] Some Conservapedia editors urged that it be changed or deleted, but Schlafly responded by asserting that the Harvard Law Review, the Harvard University legal journal for which Obama was once an editor and president, uses racial quotas and stated: "The statement about affirmative action is accurate and will remain in the entry."[47] In contrast, the articles about conservative politicians Ronald Reagan, a former United States president who was a member of the Republican Party, and Margaret Thatcher, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, have been observed as praising their respective subjects.[14][48] Schlafly has stated Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public"; that claim has been labeled "sensational" by Andrew Chung of the Canadian newspaper The Toronto Star.[7]

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."[49] 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".[7]

Other editorial policies

Editing is disabled for most users between 1:00AM and 6:00AM (EST).[50] Additionally, the site has stated that it prohibits users from editing entries on the site from IP addresses due to concerns over vandalism and defamation.[5] While Wikipedia allows both American English and British English to be used on its articles,[51] Conservapedia states on its "Manual of Style" page that "American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome". It prefers that articles about the United Kingdom use British English, while articles about the United States use American English, to resolve editorial disputes.[52] Initially, Schlafly[25] and other Conservapedia editors[6] considered Wikipedia's policy allowing British English spelling to be anti-American bias. The "Conservapedia Commandments" also require edits to be "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" and that users make most edits on their site quality edits to articles; accounts that engage in what it considers "[u]nproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits" may be blocked. The commandments also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edits that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam.[27]

Reactions and criticisms

Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales said about Conservapedia that "free culture knows no bounds" and "the reuse of our work to build variants [is] directly in line with our mission."[53] Wales denied Schlafly's claims of bias on Wikipedia.[7] Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about the site.[14] However, the Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies[8][9][10] and factual relativism.[8][10] The media has compared Conservapedia to other Christian wiki websites CreationWiki, a wiki written from the perspective of creationism,[24][2] and Theopedia, a wiki covering the Bible,[40] and has also seen it as part of a trend of new conservative websites competing with mainstream ones, such as MyChurch, a Christian version of social networking site MySpace, and GodTube, a Christian version of video site YouTube.[11] Thomas Eugene 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.[7] Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians".[54] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[55] APC magazine reports this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[32] 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 [only] two equally valid interpretations of the facts".[8]

Allegations of homophobia have also been raised against Conservapedia.[56] Bryan Ochalla, writing for the LGBT magazine The Advocate, referred to the project as "Wikipedia for the bigoted".[57] On the satirical news program The Daily Show, comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality.[58]

Wired magazine noted that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers."[24] Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[35] In November 2007, what is believed to be a click bot drove Conservapedia's homosexuality-related articles into its top-ten most-viewed pages.[59][60]

Lenski dialog

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

On June 9, 2008, New Scientist published an article describing Richard Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment, which observed the bacteria evolve the ability to metabolize citrate — a rare and complex mutation.[61] Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data. Lenski explained that the relevant data were in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data. Lenski replied again that the relevant data were already in the paper, that the "raw data" were living bacterial samples, which he would willingly share with qualified researchers at properly equipped biology labs, and that he felt insulted by letters and comments on Conservapedia, which he saw as brusque and offensive, including claims of outright deceit.[62] The exchange, recorded on a Conservapedia page called "Lenski dialog",[63] was widely reported on news aggregate sites and weblogs. Carl Zimmer wrote that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski's paper] closely",[64] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.[65]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Conservapedia.com". Alexa. 2008-08-17. Retrieved 2008-08-17.
  2. ^ a b c d Coyle, Jake (2007-05-08). "Popular Web Sites Breed Political Copies". San Francisco Chronicle. Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-04-26.
  3. ^ a b "Andy Schlafly". Eagle Forum University. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g Siegel, Robert (2007-03-13). "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  5. ^ a b "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia". Conservapedia. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-03-17. Concerns over anonymous editors using IP addresses include the charge that Wikipedia's policy allowing IP edits results "in frequent defamation" (item 25) and "rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly liberal" (item 29). Thus, it is stated that "[c]redible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses."
  6. ^ a b c Turner, Adam (2007-03-05). "Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right". IT Wire. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g 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)
  8. ^ a b c d e 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.
  9. ^ a b c d "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes". Metro. Associated Newspapers. 2007-03-19. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
  10. ^ a b c d Maloney, Evan (2007-05-30). "Conservapedia: as accurate as a catatonic drunkard's line of urine". Splat!. News.com.au. Retrieved 2008-06-08. Cite error: The named reference "Maloney" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b "GodTube Provides Christian Web-Video Alternative". Fox News. AP. 2007-11-02. Retrieved 2008-08-02.
  12. ^ McBroom, Sarah (2007-03-27). "Conservapedia.com -- an encylopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ "Eagle Forum University". Eagle Forum. Retrieved 2008-07-28.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g Simon, Stephanie (2007-06-22). "A conservative's answer to Wikipedia". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  15. ^ Zeller, Shawn (2007-03-05). "Conservapedia: See Under "Right"". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
  16. ^ a b c Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-01). "Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ 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)
  18. ^ "American History Lecture One". Conservapedia. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  19. ^ a b "American History 101". Eagle Forum University. 2007-04-30. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  20. ^ "Conservapedia statistics". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-05-10.
  21. ^ Decker, Edwin (2007-07-25). "Sickopedia". San Diego CityBeat. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
  22. ^ Wehrwein, Zach (Autumn 2007). "My Trip Through La La Land". Gordian Knot. University of Chicago. Retrieved 2008-08-07.
  23. ^ Holsinger, Kevin (2008-05-09). "The Case Against Mental Inbreeding: Debate Topics on Conservapedia". Daily Kos. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
  24. ^ a b c d e f Calore, Michael (February 28 2007) What Would Jesus Wiki? Wired Magazine
  25. ^ a b c "Today programme" (RealPlayer). BBC Radio 4. 7 March 2007 8:16am. Retrieved 2007-04-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ Andrew Schlafly. Conservapedia on The Hour. YouTube. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |date2= ignored (help)
  27. ^ a b "Conservapedia Commandments". Conservapedia. 2008-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  28. ^ "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Wikipedia. 2007-01-21. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. ^ "Wikipedia:Attribution". Wikipedia. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  30. ^ "Conservapedia:Guidelines". Conservapedia. 2008-05-27. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  31. ^ By default, Conservapedia titles its article on evolution as "theory of evolution", which is redirected from the title "evolution". The same applies to their article about sexual orientation
  32. ^ a b Sbarski, Peter (2007-03-10). "Wikipedia vs Conservapedia". APC. Retrieved 2008-06-28.
  33. ^ "Conservapedia:Kangaroo". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-06-20.
  34. ^ "Conservapedia:Relativity". Conservapedia. 2007-02-22. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  35. ^ a b c Thomson, Iain. (2007). "Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia 'bias'". Information World Review, February 28.
  36. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus". Retrieved March 4, 2007.
  37. ^ "Conservapedia". RationalWiki. 2008-04-22. Retrieved 2008-04-22.
  38. ^ Zimmer, Carl (2007-02-21). "Loom Sources Sources". Scienceblog.com. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  39. ^ Lewis, Shelley. (2007). "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Wikipedia's War on Christians, Patriots". Huffington Post, February 23.
  40. ^ a b Zhang, Linda (2007-03-07). "Conservapedia Challenges 'Anti-Christian' Wiki". The Christian Post. Retrieved 2008-06-28.
  41. ^ Klein, Ezra (2008-07-28). "God's Bathroom Floor". The American Prospect. Retrieved 2008-07-28.
  42. ^ "Conservapedia:On liberalism". RationalWiki. 2008-04-04. Retrieved 2008-05-12. Cited article "Liberal" from Conservapedia
  43. ^ Alterman, Eric (2008). Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America. New York, New York: Viking Books. p. 261. ISBN 0670018600. Cited article "Liberal" from Conservapedia
  44. ^ Dipietro, Anthony (2008-03-26). "Truth behind professors' beliefs". The Lantern. Retrieved 2008-05-03. Cited article "Professor values" from Conservapedia
  45. ^ Cotey, John (2007-03-16). "Conservative Web site counters the 'bias' of Wikipedia". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved 2008-07-03.
  46. ^ a b Murphy, Brian (February 25, 2008), "Obama represents genuine change for weary Americans", The Lantern {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  47. ^ Schlafly, Andrew (17 February, 2008). ""Talk:Barack Obama"". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-03-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  48. ^ Read, Brock. (March 2 2007). "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing" Chronicle of Higher Education
  49. ^ "Conservapedia Copyright". Conservapedia. 2007-04-06. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  50. ^ "Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany". Conservapedia. 2007-08-05. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  51. ^ "National varieties of English". Manual of Style. Wikipedia. 2008-04-11. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  52. ^ "Spelling". Manual of Style. Conservapedia. 2008-04-10. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  53. ^ Biever, Celeste (2007-02-26). "A conservative rival for Wikipedia?". New Scientist.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  54. ^ Millham, Matt (2008-06-15). "Faith takes strange forms on the Web". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 2008-06-25.
  55. ^ Gray, Tim (2007-04-03). "Conservapedia: Far Righter Than Wikipedia". ecommercetimes.com. Retrieved 2008-06-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  56. ^ Caleca, Ben (2008-05-17). "Conservapedia: Taking a Stand for Oppressed WASPs everywhere". The Michigan Daily. Retrieved 2008-05-19.
  57. ^ Bryan Ochalla, "Wikipedia for the bigoted." The Advocate, March 25, 2008, p. 12.
  58. ^ "Episode 12087". The Daily Show. 2007-06-27. Comedy Central. Black highlighted Conservapedia's introductory sentence "homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle". In response, he said: "On Conservapedia, 'gay' sounds way more interesting!"
  59. ^ "Top ten most viewed pages on Wikipedia and Conservapedia". Boing Boing. Retrieved 2008-07-14.
  60. ^ "Conservapedia, Homosexuality, and pranked statistics". Infothought (Seth Finkelstein). Retrieved 2008-07-14.
  61. ^ Holmes, Bob (2008-06-09). "Bacteria makes major evolutionary shift in the lab". New Scientist. Retrieved 2008-06-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  62. ^ Marshall, Michael (2008-06-25). "Creationist critics get their comeuppance". newscientist. Retrieved 2008-06-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  63. ^ "Conservapedia: Lenski Dialog". Conservapedia. 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  64. ^ Zimmer, Carl (2008-06-24). "Loom: =Of bacteria and throw pillows". scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2008-06-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  65. ^ Myers, PZ (2008-06-24). "Lenski gives conservapedia a lesson". scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2008-06-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=233664370"