Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This essay is an original work by Aschlafly. Please comment only on the talk page.

1. How did you come up with the idea for Conservapedia?

This project began to provide a trustworthy resource for students that would be free of the liberal bias that permeates Wikipedia. This site has since grown enormously and includes contributions by scholars worldwide. The index has lectures and study lists that are helpful to students. Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online resources of its kind, without the liberal and anti-Christian bias of other online sources like Wikipedia.


2. Is this your primary full-time job or do you have other projects currently in progress?

I am a conservative practicing attorney who also teaches college-level courses to teenagers.


3. What are you hoping to accomplish with this new website?

Our goals include:

-- provide a valuable resource for students, teachers, reporters, and the public that is free from liberal bias.

-- serve as the think tank of the future

-- foster and promote original insights

-- circulate daily news censored by other media outlets (see http://www.conservapedia.com for examples)


4. How do you justify Conservapedia being an accurate reference page, when “joeblow” can log on and add/ edit pages?

We have a merit-based system that facilitates correction of entries, and our "cream" rises to the top. Our editors are topflight and we have much higher standards that Wikipedia. For example, we cut down on errors by prohibiting gossip, which Wikipedia allows. We also prohibit obscenity, while Wikipedia allows even pornographic images.


5. Is every single entry reviewed for accuracy?

Entries are reviewed over time, and factual claims must have supporting citations. Liberal and poor-quality contributions are easy to spot and rectify.


6. How would you answer the charge that conservapedia is tilting the views to the “right”… just like Wikipedia tilts to the “left”? Shouldn’t an encyclopedia’s information be balanced and just represent the facts?

Conservapedia merely prohibits liberal bias. We are neutral to the facts. We have some liberal contributors, but they must stick to the facts.


7. You're claiming to be a "conservative encyclopedia that people can trust" what kind of content/ censorship guidelines will you use to measure "questionable" entries?

Our rules are simple and straightforward:

Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia or other non-public domain sources. Always cite and give credit to your sources,[1] even if in the public domain. Please see Conservapedia's Manual of Style which assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article. Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language. 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. Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited. The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.[2] Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked. A blatantly inappropriate entry, such as vandalism or obscenity, can result in immediate blocking without warning. Sockpuppets are also blocked.

↑ Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.


8. Wikipedia has cornered the market for people to use as a quick reference... how will you be able to compete with them since they have such a head start? Can you catch up?

Wikipedia is like Kool-Aid, a favored first drink for kids. But like Kool-Aid, Wikipedia does not satisfy. Many Wikipedia users, particularly smarter ones, want a better “beverage”. That’s Conservapedia.

I think a brain drain is already occurring from Wikipedia. Quality does matter in encyclopedias.

Many Wikipedia users do not yet realize that it has pornographic images and pervasive liberal bias, and many will leave as they realize that.


9. Has your organization had any contact with Wikipedia?

No, but I have debated one of its representatives on BBC radio.


10. Any additional thoughts/ comments you would like to share with readers....

Our audience has exceeded 5 million page views. Conservapedia is the future and we welcome visits and contributions by everyone.

Author

--Aschlafly 13:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools