Conservapedia: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson
imported>John Stephenson
(→‎Editorial policy: promotes -> prioritises)
Line 4: Line 4:
Like Wikipedia, all contributors can freely edit articles unless the page has been protected, and [[anonymity]] is permitted. In line with its [[religion|religious]] and [[Christianity|Christian]] theme, Conservapedia's editorial policy consists of "Commandments", a reference to the [[Ten Commandments|two sets of laws]] the [[Bible]] says were handed down to [[Moses]] from [[God]]. The Commandments require, among others, that "everything... be [[truth|true]] and verifiable" and also enforce a [[family]]-friendly policy.<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Commandments&oldid=207247 Conservapedia:Commandments].' June 23rd 2007.</ref> Until March 2007, Conservapedia required by Commandment that "As much as possible, American [[spelling]] of [[word]]s must be used",<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Commandments&oldid=55263 Conservapedia:Commandments].' March 21st 2007.</ref> but now the site's "Manual of Style" presents American spellings as being preferred, with [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] spellings possible depending on the [[context]].<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style&oldid=252988#Spelling Conservapedia:Manual of Style - Spelling].' July 27th 2007.</ref>
Like Wikipedia, all contributors can freely edit articles unless the page has been protected, and [[anonymity]] is permitted. In line with its [[religion|religious]] and [[Christianity|Christian]] theme, Conservapedia's editorial policy consists of "Commandments", a reference to the [[Ten Commandments|two sets of laws]] the [[Bible]] says were handed down to [[Moses]] from [[God]]. The Commandments require, among others, that "everything... be [[truth|true]] and verifiable" and also enforce a [[family]]-friendly policy.<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Commandments&oldid=207247 Conservapedia:Commandments].' June 23rd 2007.</ref> Until March 2007, Conservapedia required by Commandment that "As much as possible, American [[spelling]] of [[word]]s must be used",<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Commandments&oldid=55263 Conservapedia:Commandments].' March 21st 2007.</ref> but now the site's "Manual of Style" presents American spellings as being preferred, with [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] spellings possible depending on the [[context]].<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style&oldid=252988#Spelling Conservapedia:Manual of Style - Spelling].' July 27th 2007.</ref>


Conservapedia also emphasises that it does not "attempt to be [[neutrality|neutral]] to all points of view". However, this [[relativism]] seems to potentially allow for descriptions which ''favor'' one side rather than none; its own example of how "[[terrorism|terrorist]]" is preferable to "militant", in contrast to what Wikipedia might use, presupposes that the subject ''is'' a terrorist.<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia&oldid=239880 How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia].' July 18th 2007.</ref> Similarly, the site often promotes a creationist perspective which is flatly contradicted by overwhelming [[science|scientific]] evidence; its article on [[kangaroo|kangaroo]]s, for instance, promotes the idea that these [[marsupial]]s did not [[evolution|evolve]] but are descended from a pair that boarded [[Noah's Ark]].<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kangaroo&oldid=242574 Kangaroo].' July 20th 2007.</ref> The site has attracted heavy criticism and ridicule as a result of pages such as this,<ref>''thestar.com'': '[http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501 Conservative wants to set Wikipedia right].' March 11th 2007.</ref> and Conservapedia administrators frequently have to block [[vandalism (wiki)|vandals]] attempting to insert inappropriate material.<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Ipblocklist IP block list]. According to this list, in June 2007, administrators blocked 1,598 accounts and [[IP address]]es; in the same period, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist English-language Wikipedia blocked 8,574], despite the latter having about 100 times more articles. Citizendium [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist blocked four], with about 2,400 articles.</ref>
Conservapedia also emphasises that it does not "attempt to be [[neutrality|neutral]] to all points of view". However, this [[relativism]] seems to potentially allow for descriptions which ''favor'' one side rather than none; its own example of how "[[terrorism|terrorist]]" is preferable to "militant", in contrast to what Wikipedia might use, presupposes that the subject ''is'' a terrorist.<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia&oldid=239880 How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia].' July 18th 2007.</ref> Similarly, the site often promotes a creationist perspective which is flatly contradicted by overwhelming [[science|scientific]] evidence; its article on [[kangaroo|kangaroo]]s, for instance, prioritises the idea that these [[marsupial]]s did not [[evolution|evolve]] but are descended from a pair that boarded [[Noah's Ark]].<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kangaroo&oldid=242574 Kangaroo].' July 20th 2007.</ref> The site has attracted heavy criticism and ridicule as a result of pages such as this,<ref>''thestar.com'': '[http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/190501 Conservative wants to set Wikipedia right].' March 11th 2007.</ref> and Conservapedia administrators frequently have to block [[vandalism (wiki)|vandals]] attempting to insert inappropriate material.<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Ipblocklist IP block list]. According to this list, in June 2007, administrators blocked 1,598 accounts and [[IP address]]es; in the same period, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist English-language Wikipedia blocked 8,574], despite the latter having about 100 times more articles. Citizendium [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist blocked four], with about 2,400 articles.</ref>


==Footnotes==
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 01:36, 30 July 2007

Conservapedia is an internet encyclopedia project that attempts to present information from a conservative, creationist and pro-American viewpoint. It is a wiki project using the same Mediawiki software as Citizendium and Wikipedia; the site has set itself up in opposition particularly to Wikipedia and its perceived "liberal bias".[1] It was founded in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative commentator Phyllis Schlafly, and originally began as a class project by homeschooled students.[2] As of July 2007, it had about 16,000 articles.

Editorial policy

Like Wikipedia, all contributors can freely edit articles unless the page has been protected, and anonymity is permitted. In line with its religious and Christian theme, Conservapedia's editorial policy consists of "Commandments", a reference to the two sets of laws the Bible says were handed down to Moses from God. The Commandments require, among others, that "everything... be true and verifiable" and also enforce a family-friendly policy.[3] Until March 2007, Conservapedia required by Commandment that "As much as possible, American spelling of words must be used",[4] but now the site's "Manual of Style" presents American spellings as being preferred, with Commonwealth spellings possible depending on the context.[5]

Conservapedia also emphasises that it does not "attempt to be neutral to all points of view". However, this relativism seems to potentially allow for descriptions which favor one side rather than none; its own example of how "terrorist" is preferable to "militant", in contrast to what Wikipedia might use, presupposes that the subject is a terrorist.[6] Similarly, the site often promotes a creationist perspective which is flatly contradicted by overwhelming scientific evidence; its article on kangaroos, for instance, prioritises the idea that these marsupials did not evolve but are descended from a pair that boarded Noah's Ark.[7] The site has attracted heavy criticism and ridicule as a result of pages such as this,[8] and Conservapedia administrators frequently have to block vandals attempting to insert inappropriate material.[9]

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Conservapedia: 'Examples of bias in Wikipedia.' July 25th 2007.
  2. ↑ Conservapedia: 'Conservapedia:About.'
  3. ↑ Conservapedia: 'Conservapedia:Commandments.' June 23rd 2007.
  4. ↑ Conservapedia: 'Conservapedia:Commandments.' March 21st 2007.
  5. ↑ Conservapedia: 'Conservapedia:Manual of Style - Spelling.' July 27th 2007.
  6. ↑ Conservapedia: 'How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia.' July 18th 2007.
  7. ↑ Conservapedia: 'Kangaroo.' July 20th 2007.
  8. ↑ thestar.com: 'Conservative wants to set Wikipedia right.' March 11th 2007.
  9. ↑ Conservapedia: 'IP block list. According to this list, in June 2007, administrators blocked 1,598 accounts and IP addresses; in the same period, the English-language Wikipedia blocked 8,574, despite the latter having about 100 times more articles. Citizendium blocked four, with about 2,400 articles.

External links

See also

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=267416"