Talk:Conservapedia

Template:Pbneutral

Limited Membership and Bias

i went to the conservapedia to become a member and they wouldn't even allow me to create an account. I think this is an obvious attempt to keep people of differing opinions out. i have also noticed that their site has many conservative bias and doesn't have nearly as many topics as wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarofalbany (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Account creation is switched on and off as the admins see fit. You could send an application to their mail address, of course (it's not widely advertised, I admit: Look for it at the bottom of the left column of the main page - happy scrolling).

Also keep in mind that this talk page is about improving the article, so this isn't the place for original research or speculation about motivation. If there are reliable sources about the quality/quantity of CP articles compared to WP, we can talk more about this. :) --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is one function of fascism, so it really shouldn't be a surprise. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 22:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue is brought up repeatedly on this talk page: they turn registration on/off from time to time. There's even a discussion about this point above. No one will allow this to be presented in the article, though, because everyone's experience on CP is considered original research. — Timneu22 · talk 16:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It was usually switched off by admin TK (User:TK-CP), who switched it off in December and (I understand) passed away on Dec 17. No-one has seen fit to switch it back on again since - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I missed that. How did you find out about that? That's sad to hear. I disagreed a lot with TK but enjoyed chatting with him. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The blow-by-blow account of how we figured it out is here, but basically social security death index, and then verification from local authorities. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I encountered heavy resistance on Conservapedia when I tried to cite articles detailing scientific evidence for evolution. I mean, the name of the site admits that their purpose is to be biased, but I was still a little surprised when I got my editing privileges revoked for citing a scientific experiment... Makes me very grateful for Wiki.

Also, I apparently got banned by Andy Schlafly himself. Kind of an honor. The Cap'n (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add information on Conservapedia currently blocking large ranges of IP addresses from accessing their website, but it seems Rationalwiki is not considered an appropriate source (though I actually have "original research" on this subject, ie. most of Finland seems to be blocked). Having this information included in the editorial policies would make sense, what would be an appropriate method of including it? – OttoMäkelä (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You can stick it in when some newspaper writes about it. Not before. See WP:Reliable sources. Set up a blog if you really feel an urge to publicise information like that. Dmcq (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. We all know that is Conservapedia range-blocking actions are true, we don't have to be bigger Catholics than pope. It is not a gossip or a fact that is hard to prove. Europeans for weeks can't access Conservapedia.-- Bojan  Talk  09:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

They've blocked several IP ranges on the server itself. See this. Probably still doesn't count as a Reliable Source though. --rpeh •T•C•E• 10:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Britain's blocked. Although that's perhaps not surprising, since according to Rationalwiki the use of British spelling itself indicates a liberal bias. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you thought it couldn't be done, but...some spelling is ant-conservative! (Although, irony upon irony, the American spellings are an evolution of the original British ones, and thus inherently more liberal an interpretation than the British versions...) BlackMarlin (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The only semi-reliable source I've found is this, a blog at the London Review of Books. Doubt if it's usable though. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• Lanigan, Damian. "Conservapedia's gay obsession." The Telegraph. November 22, 2007.
• An alternate link for the simon article: Simon, Stephanie. "Conservapedia: online reference that's read from right to right." Los Angeles Times at Seattle Times. Saturday June 23, 2007.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That first one looks more like a blog to me, it's not a newspaperman. Do they have editorial control over those pages? Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Just checked with the Telegraph and the blogs on their site seem to come from the My Telegraph site, where the system is moderation by flagging.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just checked on the second link, and I'm afraid it won't work as an alternate link for the Stephanie Simon article at the LA Tiems. Superficially it looks like the same article, but it has been pruned in places and sometimes quite severely. Better to stick with the original source, not a derived clone where the redaction of material could have altered the reading of the original article.--SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

C'mon people, SOURCES!

I can't stand Conservapedia any more than the next guy (proudly blocked since April 2007) but you can't use sources like Conservaleaks and RationalWiki. These just don't even approach meeting WP:RS. Edit-warring a change into an article after it has been objected to ([1][2]) is out-of-bounds behaviour.—Kww(talk) 18:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't accuse people of edit warring without proper justification. The original edit was removed because no source was provided; I provided one. That's not edit warring. If you don't think that an email from the site's owner is a reliable source, fine, but remember NPA and AGF when saying so. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was certainly better than adding it back with a "citation needed" tag, which was what the first restoration did.—Kww(talk) 18:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone help me?

I am a Conservapedia under the same name but I am unable to view the site. Is it down? Does anyone know why I keep getting a page that says "Forbidden"? Does anyone know how I can contact Conservapedia? Thanks. MaxFletcher (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

See above discussion about IP rangeblocks restricting access to the site... yep, even to view it. --Canttaketheskyfromme (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But I have been viewing and editing for a week, why have the restricted me now? Is there anyway I contact them? MaxFletcher (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You need to Email an admin to get a block lifted, but I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. The official advice is to "Email cpwebmasterconservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.". I'm not sure if that address is still active, or if it is, if they even bother to check it, but it's worth a shot. Just be realistic in your expectations (i.e. nothing) --Canttaketheskyfromme (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. MaxFletcher (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So one can't even view it if rangeblocked and can't see who blocked you or where to write? That's a good one LOL (That's "laughs out loud" for sheltered Conservapedia readers). I think that's worth telling some guy in the media and then we'll be able to write about it ;-) Dmcq (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am getting no answer from that email provided, does anyone have any other email address I can use. You can email me. MaxFletcher (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dmcq: It's not a MediaWiki rangeblock, but a server one, so yeah, you just get a 403 and that's it. Max: You can use a proxy (for example one of the ones listed on Proxy.org) to view CP and find a mail address or use the CP mail system to send a plea to Andy. But do not edit using a proxy (or if you do, disclose that and why you do so). Alternatively, you can send a mail to conservapediazoho.com or aschlaflyaol.com (before privacy objections come up: Both mail addresses are listed openly on CP as contact addresses). --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all, my problem has been solved. MaxFletcher (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this appropriate talk page discussion? Mr. Anon515 23:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not discussion related to improving the article, no. However, since this is a problem that is hitting quite a few IP ranges (and thus several Wikipedians) by now, I'd suggest that instead of deleting or force-archiving this section, we just collapse it with this summary/note: "Users who are getting 403 Forbidden errors should contact conservapediazoho.com for support". Does this sound like an acceptable compromise? --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I'm blocked from even accessing their pages now. And I was going to look up their atheism and obesity page which seems to be doing the rounds. :) I wonder what on earth is up with them because at this rate soon they'll eliminate all access. Dmcq (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I was reading a news article about Gen. Benjamin F. Butler and decided to check it out on Conservapedia. I got on and when I tried to search it dumped me. Now when I try to get on the Conservapedia link it says no broadband link.Mylittlezach (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I just had a look around with Google to try and figure what's happened to them and it looks like some gits are doing a denial of service attack [3]. I do hope thay manage to get their act together and get the site up again soon, I am most definitely against such attacks. By the way Google prompted me with the following on the left under something different 'uncyclopedia, encyclopedia dramatica, citizendium, wookieepedia, wikileaks'. Do Google really choose these things just with some algorithm, I'm amazed, it seems to summarize them so well. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And I finally got around to looking at the RationalWiki article on Conservapedia and according to that Andy Schlafly started a deliberate policy in December 2010 to block all foreign access to Conservapedia [4]. Dmcq (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You can assume any high profile site will be under some sort of cyber attack at all times. Somehow most manage to survive it without blocking entire ranges of IP's. When you add all foreign IP's to the growing list of domestic IP's that are blocked, pretty soon only Conservapedia's own editors will be able to read it - which might be better for everyone. Is there really no RS on all this stuff? I know, for example that all the IP's from my workplace are blocked, and I'm certainly in the US last time I checked.Prebys (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to Alexa [5] they are not suffering at all from all the blocks they're doing and may be gaining. Your coming here indicates your workplace is probably a den of liberals unchecked by a sense of the decorous, the fitting, or the polite .... lacking significant moral restraints. So no great loss there to them ;-) Dmcq (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

At less than three pageviews per user and an average time-on-site of under two minutes, I think that terms like "suffering" or "gaining" are relatively useless - they are pretty much dead in the water, with or without 403-blocks. (Not that I really care about Alexa.)

And bringing this a bit more on-topic re: article improvement: I don't know of any RS for this. Keep in mind that the widening 403 blocking is a somewhat recent measure, may not be permanent, and requires a big-picture look at a site that is less than a minor blip on any reliable source's radar. If somebody wanted to write about CP, they'd either get the site and write about it, or they'd get a 403 and assume it's just broken. In general, unless something big happens (on par with Lenski or the Bible Project), I wouldn't hold my breath. --Sid 3050 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm from India, and I've been getting this 403 message for quite some time now. I used to get it before as well, but then it went away for a while. Now that it's returned, it doesn't show any signs of leaving anytime soon. All this even though I managed to create an account and write an article on Time Cube (which was subsequently deleted as I "violated copyright" by copying from you guys). Is this a recurring thing, or what? Ilov90210 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold my breath. It looks like they are chopping off all access from outside the United States as part of a deliberate policy. They are only interested in the US and see anybody outside as just a potential source of vandalism. You're welcome to write in as explained earlier in this discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The site's up and running, but my account has been perma-banned for "liberal trolling" by the same admin who deleted my article. He also blocked my e-mail. Real mature, Andy, we're all REALLY proud of you! Ilov90210 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to complain about Conservapedia. This comment doesn't even add value to the article, because this blocking behavior is well-known and well-documented. Perhaps you're thinking of a different webpage. --Puellanivis (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationalwiki section issue

Thought I'd bring this to talk since it's not a clear cut question...

In the section on RationalWiki, it states:

"RationalWiki members and others have inserted vandalism edits into Conservapedia; such edits have introduced errors, pornographic images, and satire.[16]:4"

The source indicated does state this. However, the (probably unintended) implication is that Rationalwiki is adding those specific edits. I don't think that was the intent of the source, and I think it's mostly an issue with poor writing on that particular piece. However, reading it out of content, one gets a bit of an implication that RW is leaving porn all over Conservepedia. It's falls a bit afoul of guilt by association (RW is vandalizing, some people who vandalize leave porn, therefore RW leaves porn).

Given that the sentence preceding the bit above also says they have admitted to cybervandalism, and that the general vandalism is discussed elsewhere, I think we can probably ditch this bit. Thoughts? Jbower47 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. The point is already made in the earlier sentence. I'll remove that statement. 120.56.175.8 (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has reverted the removal, and while I don't quite agree with the revert summary, I think it was acceptable - at least at this time. The RW section has been a bit of a battlefield focus point in the history of this article, so I'd suggest waiting for more user input first to get consensus. --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)