Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by Akm1337 (Talk) to last version by JacobB)
Line 61: Line 61:
  
 
==Testimonies and Impact==
 
==Testimonies and Impact==
−
The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for numerous factual inaccuracies[34][30][38] and factual relativism.[34] Conservapedia has been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from a creationist perspective.[4][28] and Theopedia, a wiki covering the Bible.[43] Some writers[who?] have compared it with 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.[7] Wired magazine noted that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers."[28] Iain Thomson in Information World Review wrote that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[36] The Guardian of the United Kingdom has referred to the Conservapedia's politics as "right-wing".[57]
+
Conservapedia has been praised and ridiculed in the [[media]], on [[blog]]s, and on rival sites. Critics claim that it contains fringe viewpoints, and supporters note that it simply provides another viewpoint and an alternative to liberal bias.
  
−
Thomas Eugene Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about religion, specifically Christianity, than conservatism and that it "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia" than Wikipedia itself.[12] Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians".[58] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[59] APC magazine perceives this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[33] Conservative and Christian commentator Rod Dreher has been highly critical of the website's "Conservative Bible Project", a planned retranslation of the Bible which Dreher attributes to "insane hubris" on the part of "right-wing ideologues".[60]
+
*Conservapedia provides information about the [[American]] people that liberal critics would rather hide: for example, nearly 50 percent of Americans reject evolution and embrace [[creationism]], and even more want creationism taught alongside evolution in school. <ref>Bootie Cosgrove-Mather. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution], ''CBS News'', November 22, 2004.</ref>  Another example is the fact that atheists- often claiming to be more equipped to help their fellow men than religious people- actually give less to charity than believers, even when church giving is excluded.
  
−
The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting relativism with the implicit idea that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts".[34] Matthew Sheffield, columnist for The Washington Times and contributor to the conservative Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, argued that conservatives concerned about bias should contribute more often to Wikipedia rather than use Conservapedia as an alternative since he felt that alternative websites like Conservapedia are often "incomplete".[61] Author Damien Thompson says Conservapedia "is to dress up nonsense as science".[62]
+
*Search results for controversial subjects such as [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] contain Conservapedia links within a few searches and often on the first page.<ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=atheism&btnG=Search atheism - Google Search]</ref><ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS293US293&q=theory+of+evolution&btnG=Search theory of evolution - Google Search]</ref> 
  
−
Allegations of homophobia have also been raised against Conservapedia.[63] Bryan Ochalla, writing for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) magazine The Advocate, referred to the project as "Wikipedia for the bigoted".[64] On the satirical news program The Daily Show, comedian Lewis Black lampooned its article on homosexuality.[65]
+
*Many biographical articles contain religious references and information about the person’s religion, much more so than Wikipedia. Editor and college student Tasha Jones, ([[User:Taj|Taj]]) said of this aspect, “It gives me a better understanding of how people feel religion relates to our lives.” <ref>Stephanie Simon. [http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/19/nation/na-schlafly19 A conservative's answer to Wikipedia], ''Los Angeles Times'', June 19, 2007.</ref>
  
−
Opinions criticizing the site rapidly spread throughout the blogosphere around early 2007.[28] Schlafly appeared on radio programs Today on BBC Radio 4[29] and All Things Considered on NPR[6] to discuss the site around that time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC program The Hour for the same purpose.[66]
+
*Conservapedia is active in political advocacy. For example, it [[charter]]ed a bus for the 2009 [[March for Life]].
  
−
Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times quoted two Conservapedia editors who commented favorably about Conservapedia.[10] Matt Barber, policy director for the conservative Christian political action group Concerned Women for America, praised Conservapedia as a more family-friendly and accurate alternative to Wikipedia.[67]
+
*Conservapedia is currently developing a blog for the [[Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation]]. The blog in its prototype form can be found here: http://mindszentyfoundation.blogspot.com/
−
 
 
−
Fighting so called bias with ten fold the bias...Doesn't help your case
 
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==

Revision as of 18:34, December 15, 2009

Previous Breaking News:
Conservapedia

Conservapedia, launched on November 21, 2006, is a conservative, family-friendly Wiki encyclopedia. It was founded by teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly with the help of several students from his fall 2006 World History class. In May 2008, Schlafly and some of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC news program The Hour (see: Videos on Conservapedia ).

When a student handed in her paper using the date-markers “BCE” and "CE” from Wikipedia, Schlafly realized that Wikipedia, despite its claim of neutrality, contained bias against the achievements of Christianity and conservatism. Other occasions of liberal bias, including the reversion of factual edits about the 2005 Kansas Evolution Hearings, led to the creation and launch of Conservapedia.

Though Conservapedia originally contained mostly history articles, it has grown over two years to be a general reference, with information about history, math, science, politics, religion and other topics. It also contains debates, essays and educational resources.

In March 2007 it was picked up by the media, and faced a barrage of vandalism (See Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"). Ever since then, it has continued to grow, and now has tens of millions of page views, and enjoys prominence on search engines.

Rapid Expansion of Web Traffic Relative to Many Conservative Websites

TrafficGraph.png

Conservapedia was listed in May of 2009 as one of the 50 most popular conservative websites in terms of web traffic by the conservative blog Right Wing News.[1] Considering that Conservapedia was only about 3 years old in May of 2009 and was doing better in web traffic than some veteran conservative websites, the rise in web traffic for Conservapedia during its existence has been quite favorable. In May of 2009, the website Right Wing News determined with the help of Alexa data that Conservapedia was ranked 37 out of 50 in terms of its website traffic relative to other popular conservative websites.[1] Conservapedia is looking forward to greatly spreading awareness of Conservapedia via the significant expansion of its YouTube channel subscriber base at Conservapediavideos. Conservapediavideos will likely soon feature a multitude of excellent conservative videos.

Leadership

Unlike Wikipedia, which bills itself as a democratic system and ends up functioning as a mobocracy, Conservapedia employs a hierarchy based on a merit system.

Andrew Schlafly is the chief administrator and is the most prolific editor, followed by bureaucrats, administrators, and regular editors. Editors who contribute substantial content may be promoted to administrator and bureaucrat, or gain extra user rights such as blocking power and uploading images.

Educational atmosphere

Due to the existence of essays and debates on Conservapedia, and conventions such as the "90/10 rule" and the use of real names, Conservapedia successfully fosters an educational environment. Because liberal bias is not allowed, much information that would be elsewhere censored can be found on Conservapedia; often it is one of the only places to find such information in one place.

Promoting Original Scholarship

Many pages tagged as essays are really more like projects, or are otherwise thought-provoking, giving Conservapedia some characteristics of a think tank. See Best New Conservative Words, The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America, Top Causes of Rejecting Conservativism, Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?, Disputed Biblical Translations, and Linguistic Analysis of Candidates.

Conservative Bible Project

On August 12, 2009, Conservapedia began an enormous scholarly enterprise, the Conservative Bible Project, which endeavors to retranslate scripture into modern English while emphasizing Biblical insights and counteracting liberal bias. As of Oct. 29, 2009, this project has translated about 30% of it, or about 2400 verses.

The project has been the subject of extensive discussion and debate throughout television, radio, and print media, as well as on the internet, and has succeeded in encouraging even its most strident liberal critics to read the bible in their efforts to refute it!

Differences with Wikipedia

Conservapedia strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts, which often back up conservative ideas more than liberal ones. Rather than claim a neutral point of view and then insert bias, Conservapedia is clear that it seeks to give due credit to conservatism and Christianity. Schlafly said in regard to the point of view issue, "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." [2]

Wikipedia articles may contain trivia, gossip, profanity, and even pornographic/sexually explicit images. The latter three are prohibited on Conservapedia and trivia is largely discouraged.

The administrative hierarchy prevents Conservapedia from being hijacked by a faction, and thus preserves it from mobocracy, as discussed above.

Influential editors and users

  • Aschlafly is the username of the aforementioned founder of Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly. He has contributed massively to Conservapedia since the beginning, authored many articles including the student lectures, and is the final authority on article content and user conduct.
  • Ed Poor, active at Conservapedia for over a year, and at Wikipedia for seven years, was the first elected bureaucrat at Wikipedia and has been extremely influential at both sites. At Conservapedia, he has primarily aimed at accuracy, rationality, and user cooperation.
  • Jpatt another hardcore conservative contributor despised by liberals.
  • TK has made many substantive contributions since coming to Conservapedia over two years ago, and is known for his vigilance against vandals.
  • DeanS helped found the Conservapedia news project, and he is its main contributor. He has also worked on articles related to Mormonism.
  • SharonS has been an editor since the very beginning of Conservapedia, and was interviewed and quoted in a newspaper article to explain and defend the project.
  • RobSmith Created some of Conservapedia's most acclaimed articles, and was a tireless vandal fighter and researcher on the Socialist and Communist agendas.
  • RJJensen has a PhD in American Studies and has been a professor of history and political science at numerous schools. Professor Jensen has made significant contibutions to Conservapedia's historical articles.

Testimonies and Impact

Conservapedia has been praised and ridiculed in the media, on blogs, and on rival sites. Critics claim that it contains fringe viewpoints, and supporters note that it simply provides another viewpoint and an alternative to liberal bias.

  • Conservapedia provides information about the American people that liberal critics would rather hide: for example, nearly 50 percent of Americans reject evolution and embrace creationism, and even more want creationism taught alongside evolution in school. [3] Another example is the fact that atheists- often claiming to be more equipped to help their fellow men than religious people- actually give less to charity than believers, even when church giving is excluded.
  • Search results for controversial subjects such as atheism and evolution contain Conservapedia links within a few searches and often on the first page.[4][5]
  • Many biographical articles contain religious references and information about the person’s religion, much more so than Wikipedia. Editor and college student Tasha Jones, (Taj) said of this aspect, “It gives me a better understanding of how people feel religion relates to our lives.” [6]

See Also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 The 50 Most Popular Conservative Websites, Right Wing News, March 16, 2009.
  2. ↑ Robert Siegel. Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?, npr.org, November 29, 2009.
  3. ↑ Bootie Cosgrove-Mather. Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution, CBS News, November 22, 2004.
  4. ↑ atheism - Google Search
  5. ↑ theory of evolution - Google Search
  6. ↑ Stephanie Simon. A conservative's answer to Wikipedia, Los Angeles Times, June 19, 2007.

contributions