|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| {{TOC|right}} | | {{TOC|right}} |
|
| |
|
| '''Conservapedia''' is an [[Internet]] [[encyclopedia]] project whose purpose is to present information from a [[American conservatism|conservative]] and pro-[[United States of America|American]] viewpoint. Founded in November, 2006, by [[Andrew Schlafly]], son of the conservative commentator [[Phyllis Schlafly]], and originally begun as a class project by [[homeschooling|homeschooled]] students,<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About Conservapedia:About],'</ref> it is a [[wiki]] project using the same [[Mediawiki]] [[software]] that [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] do. It has, in particular, set itself up in opposition to Wikipedia and its perceived "[[liberalism|liberal]] bias".<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&oldid=249783 Examples of bias in Wikipedia].' July 25th 2007.</ref> As of October, 2008, it had about 26,000 articles.<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics Special:Statistics].'</ref> | | '''Conservapedia''' is an [[Internet]] [[encyclopedia]] project whose purpose is to present information from a [[American conservatism|conservative]] viewpoint. Founded in November, 2006, by Andrew Schlafly, son of the conservative commentator [[Phyllis Schlafly]], and originally begun as a class project by [[homeschooling|homeschooled]] students,<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:About Conservapedia:About],'</ref> it is a [[wiki]] project using the same [[Mediawiki]] [[software]] that [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] do. It has, in particular, set itself up in opposition to Wikipedia and its perceived "[[liberalism|liberal]] bias".<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&oldid=249783 Examples of bias in Wikipedia].' July 25th 2007.</ref> As of October, 2008, it had about 26,000 articles.<ref>''Conservapedia'': '[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics Special:Statistics].'</ref> |
| | |
| ==Editorial policy==
| |
| | |
| Conservapedia's stated goal is to help readers discover the truth, and so it exalts certain viewpoints and principles in accordance with its Christian-friendly, US-conservative viewpoint. Alternate ideas may be described, but not presented as [[truth]].
| |
| | |
| In particular, Conservapedia disputes the mainstream of academic and political thought on evolution and homosexuality. In its first year, the evolution article was heavily biased towards a [[Young Earth creationism]] perspective, but that has shifted as [[Old Earth creationism|Old Earth creationists]] have come on board. Its stance against homosexuality is based on a Christian perspective shared by senior administrators: i.e, it is immoral and unhealthy.
| |
| | |
| Conservapedia has had a rocky relationship with people who disagree with its viewpoints, philosophy and policies. After a spring and summer of Conservapedia trying to "engage the opposition", project critics/opponents created the rival [[RationalWiki]] to coordinate their efforts.
| |
| | |
| Recruiting of new writers has been slow, with hundreds of new user accounts being created each week and all but a handful promptly banned as sockpuppets.
| |
| | |
| As at 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 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>
| |
| | |
| Liberal commentators have made fun of the obsession of Conservapedia readers with [[homosexuality]],<ref>The Young Turks, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCV158ln_zk How Ridiculous are Conservatives?]</ref> as well as the entries on [[creation science]].
| |
| | |
| == Positions ==
| |
| The ideological views of the authors stand out quite strongly on Conservapedia and can be characterized as follows: the authors of Conservapedia are Christian, usually of a Biblically literalist position, usually a creationist (including both young- and old-earth creationist, and supporters of [[intelligent design]] theory). Politically, Conservapedia takes a position that is [[abortion|anti-abortion]], for [[capital punishment]], against [[homosexuality]], against [[gun control]], against [[Medicare]] and state-funded health services, anti-[[vaccination]],<ref>Andrew Schafly, founder of Conservapedia, has worked as a lawyer for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative medical group who oppose mandatory vaccination - see [http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrvacres.htm Doctors' group votes to oppose vaccine mandates], a 2000 press release from AAPS. Other sources: [http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/medicine.html] [http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/02/conservapedia.php] [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Vaccination,_Censorship_of] [http://www.kellyramsey.net/index.php/2007/06/22/smallpox-and-vaccination-on-conservapedia/]</ref> against perceived left-wing bias in academia and what they describe as "professorial values" (following the line given by other right-wing critics of academia including [[David Horowitz]]), against the [[minimum wage]], broadly against what they deem left-wing economic values and many liberal social values. They are strongly for [[home schooling]], and generally hold to a neoliberal, ''laissez faire'' economic position.
| |
| | |
| Regarding the current President of the [[United States of America]], [[Barack Obama]], Conservapedia alleges that he is a [[Islam|Muslim]], that work he did with the community-organizing group [[ACORN]] was actually communistic, that Obama's stated influence by [[Frank Marshall Davis]] is a sign of his latent Communism, that Obama is heavily connected with [[William Ayers]], the former leader of the [[Weather Underground]], that as President, Obama has pushed a "Muslim agenda" in both domestic and foreign policy (examples include diplomatic meetings with leaders of Muslim countries, and rather strangely the successful Navy sniper mission to rescue Captain [[Richard Phillips]] from [[Somalia|Somali]] pirates). Conservapedia reports on but does not agree with the stance of the "[[Birther Movement|birthers]]"—people who claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=702459 Conservapedia: Barack Obama]. September 21, 2009.</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Richard Lenski ==
| |
| After the biologist [[Richard Lenski]] published scientific results showing how bacteria in his lab had evolved through [[natural selection]] over many generations,<ref>Barrick, J. E., D. S. Yu, S. H. Yoon, H. Jeong, T. K. Oh, D. Schneider, R. E. Lenski, and J. F. Kim. 2009. "Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli". ''Nature'' 461:1243-1247. Lenski's website contains a full list of [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSearchResults.php?group=aad articles deriving from this long-term research project]; also see the [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ Long Term Experimental Evolution project homepage].</ref> Conservapedia issued a challenge to Lenski asking for samples from his laboratory. Lenski sent back a strongly condemnatory e-mail pointing out that Conservapedia doesn't have the relevant background to properly evaluate his scientific work and stating that he would not ship the samples as Conservapedia isn't a adequately-fitted research laboratory capable of receiving ''E.coli'' bacteria samples.
| |
| | |
| The e-mails have been published and are considered by some science bloggers like [[PZ Myers]] to be highly amusing and indicative of the failings of Conservapedia.<ref>Pharyngula blog, [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/lenski_gives_conservapdia_a_le.php Lenski gives Conservapædia a lesson], June 24 2008.</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Comparison with Wikipedia and Citizendium ==
| |
| Both [[Wikipedia]] and [[Citizendium]] are attempting to produce an online wiki-based encyclopedia that presents viewpoints that are broadly neutral, and to cover controversies and differences of opinions fairly and equally. Conservapedia maintains a list of differences from Wikipedia.<ref>Conservapedia, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]</ref> Some of the key differences are:
| |
| * Conservapedia publishes study guides and lectures. This stems from Conservapedia's origins as a home-schooling resource. The Wikimedia Foundation publishes similar material through the [[Wikibooks]] and [[Wikiversity]] projects, and Citizendium allows study guides and other educational resources to be published as subpages.
| |
| * Conservapedia does not have a neutrality policy and does not attempt to use neutral language. The example it gives is the use of the loaded word 'terrorist' rather than the supposedly neutral word 'militant'.
| |
| * Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia maintains a family-friendly policy. The RationalWiki website states (as of 2009) that a link to "The Silent Scream", a video showing the ultrasound footage of an abortion at eleven weeks produced by pro-life activists, is an example of a violation of the family-friendly policy.<ref>{{Cite web
| |
| | title = Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia - RationalWiki
| |
| | accessdate = 2011-11-24
| |
| | url = http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia:Differences_with_Wikipedia#No_obscenity
| |
| }}</ref>
| |
| * Wikipedia allows edits from users who are not logged in. Conservapedia requires people be logged in to edit and that the account they use not have an "anti-intellectual" username. Citizendium requires that editors be logged in with their real name (with a very small number of exceptions).
| |
| * Conservapedia claims to value experts by not "pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research". The founder of Citizendium put in place a similar policy because of a perceived deficit of respect given to experts on Wikipedia.
| |
| * Wikipedia operates a strict "no original research" policy. Conservapedia does not have this policy, and allows posting of material that matches the views and ideology of the site. Citizendium also allows some original research to be published, through both the Topic Informants Workgroup and through Signed Articles by experts.
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Footnotes== | | ==Footnotes== |
