Talk:Conservapedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Conservapedia has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.


Young Earth Creationism[edit]

Just to say that their YEC article says, in the lead,"Scientists who advocate an old earth regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as radiometric dating and biological observations have disproved it, and/or for ideological reasons. In addition, these scientists may not be aware of the many anomalies associated with the old earth/universe position." Their "Age of the Earth" article says "The Age of the Earth has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. All verifiable evidence indicates that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. Yet with circular reasoning and implausible assumptions, liberals insist that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 ± 1%).[1][2][3]" Their article on evolution - well, you get the point. Interesting, I had no idea it was that anti-scientific. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep I have the occasional look at the site, it is fascinatingly weird and reminds me of how strange human nature is. However we can't use Conservapedia itself as a source for anything unless a reliable secondary source talks about it and points to the stuff, and we're supposed to write up things according to the weight in such sources. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
A page you might like is [3] which in the ten guidelines gives a picture of the kind of world they want. Dmcq (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree entirely that we can't use it as a source for YEC support. And you're basically right about the rest, but there are exceptions. Scary link. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

While I find Conservapedia an interesting website to explore minority views, their sourcing seems to be worse than the average Wikipedia article. Their article on Young Earth Creationism includes 91 citations, but few of them actually mention which book, author, or website is being cited. For example, the article contains two citations το a page called "Question evolution!", which are used to support the existence of a "grass-roots movement" of Young Earth Creationists . The link actually links to a page in the wider website "creation.com", maintained by Creation Ministries International. There are also multiple links to a website maintained by Answers Magazine, a publication of the Answers in Genesis organization. Most of these links do not seem to link to any specific article. Conservapedia lists this among its featured articles despite its sourcing problems.

Another featured Conservapedia article is that on Wikipedia. Its lede includes the following sentence: "Wikipedia was also criticized for having a liberal bias in its articles about politics, despite Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy." The citation fails to explain who is doing the criticism. It leads to a 2011 article by someone called David Swindle, who is writing for FrontPage Magazine. The publication seems to be owned by David Horowitz.

Frankly, I do not mind the anti-scientific bias that much, but the fact is that I have seen pages on Memory Alpha with better sourcing. Dimadick (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly surprising. With the opprobrium one would get from the fan base on Memory Alpha for getting anything wrong their articles are often far better sourced than Wikipedia ones! :) Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Come. Is this kind of discussion fit for the talk-page? Some of you may not agree with CP (I don't agree with most of their viewpoints myself), but do you have the right to use the talkpage for expressing those disagreements? I have retired from editing, but thought I might post this comment. 68.100.116.118 (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
If you are posting, you haven't retired from editing. - Nunh-huh 08:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
That's no reply to my question.68.100.116.118 (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it isn't. It was an observation. - Nunh-huh 16:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Will someone then answer my question? Isn't this inappropriately using the talk page as a forum? 68.100.116.118 (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
They have expressed an opinion about it but did not go on about it. They were not disruptive. The discussion had ended two weeks before you came along. You put in your question about a forum three times and attack other editors. So my answer to you is no I am happy enough if people get a bit of their exasperation off their chest provided they then stop. I see no need to start criticizing unless people go on and on. Dmcq (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Is that what the rules of Wikipedia are? I was not attacking other editors(I don't approve of the Conservapedia project myself), but I want to know if this discussion follows the rules. Does the rule state that there is an exception if the talk is not disruptive? Does it only apply to disruptive discussions? 68.100.116.118 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The "rules" of Wikipedia dictate that any opinions in the article space are referenced and attributed to reliable sources. The rules for talk pages are more relaxed, allowing the expression of opinions in order to facilitate the work on articles. If expressing unattributable personal opinion on the talk page keeps it out of the article, that's a valid function for the talk page. It can be frustrating for reasonable people to deal with unreasonable fringe theories, and it can be frustrating for people to know that the theories expressed within Conservapedia are counterfactual and yet, because of the relative obscurity of Conservapedia and the lack of reliable sources paying attention to it, be unable to find serious media evaluations acknowledging that. Some of this frustration may then be manifested here on the talk page. What you see here does not seem to me to be excessive or to violate Wikipedia policy. - Nunh-huh 03:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The 'rules' aren't hard and fast like the laws of a country. I'll quote the first sentence of WP:POLICY here as it really summarizes everything:
"Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia."
WP:NOTAFORUM is about keeping on track and not disrupting. This discussion has gone off track and is continuing to do so and if you wish to continue should be done on a village pump or the talk page of WP:NOT. Dmcq (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Conservapedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)