Jump to content

Conservapedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wisdom89 (talk | contribs) at 02:34, 27 June 2008 (→History and overview: this section probably should follow here since it's discussing Schlafly's feelings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Moveprotected

Conservapedia
Conservapedia logo
Screenshot
File:Conservapedia Main Page.PNG
Conservapedia's Main Page
Type of site
Internet encyclopedia project
Available inEnglish
OwnerAndrew Schlafly
Created byVarious
URLwww.conservapedia.com
CommercialNo

Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric social conservative and Conservative Christian point of view. Started in November 2006,[1] the site was founded by lawyer and history teacher[2] Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. He stated that he founded the project because he felt that the popular open-source web encyclopedia Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.[3]

Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia, some of whose policies Schlafly feels contribute to bias. For example, only users logged in to registered accounts can make changes to Conservapedia articles.[4] Primarily, a set of policies known as the Conservapedia Commandments guide editorial procedures on the site on such issues as bias and accuracy.[5] Additionally, articles and other content on the site frequently includes criticism of Wikipedia and liberal ideology.[6] The site has received much criticism from those who have accused it of factual inaccuracies and bias.[7]

History and overview

Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly

Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled, high-school-level students in New Jersey[8][2] by Schlafly, a U.S. history teacher for the Eagle Forum University educational program.[9] He felt the need to start the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred.[10] Although he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast", as reported by Shawn Zeller of the New York Times, Schlafly became concerned over bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.[11] Schlafly has expressed hope that Conservapedia becomes a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceives in Wikipedia.[12][6] The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's organization Eagle Forum, uses material for various online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.[13][14][15] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic, such as U.S. history, is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.[9]

The site uses the free MediaWiki software originally created for Wikipedia, but is not affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikipedia's umbrella organization, the Wikimedia Foundation.[13] [1] The site's earliest articles date from November 22, 2006.[12][13][3] As of May 10, 2008, the site estimated that it contained over 23,000 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.[16] Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include a daily-selected Bible verse[10] and links to news articles that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.[17] The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion, history, and politics.[18]

Many Conservapedia articles criticize values that its editors associate with liberal ideology.[19][20] The Conservapedia article on liberalism lists grievances over liberal opposition to school prayer and other values that the editors consider important to conservatives.[21] Another article, titled "Professor values", alleges a liberal bias in academia.[22] Schlafly said in an interview with National Public Radio that Wikipedia's article on the history of the Democratic Party is an "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson" and that it is "specious and worth criticizing".[3] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages;[6] at one point, that page was the most-viewed page of the site.[5]

Editorial differences with Wikipedia

When he launched the online encyclopedia project, Schlafly asserted the need for an alternative to Wikipedia due to editorial philosophy conflicts. The site's "Conservapedia Commandments"[23] differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include following a neutral point of view and rules against original research.[24][25][26] In contrast to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated that "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."[3]

Schlafly has also said,

Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob.[27]

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian newspaper, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds — so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."[12] On March 7, 2007 Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that Wikipedia articles apparently prefer to use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly.[28] Schlafly's statement that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public" has been labeled "sensational" by Andrew Chung of the Canadian newspaper The Star.[6]

Religion and science

Many Conservapedia articles support the Young Earth creationist point of view.[13][3][29] An example of such article content differences is the subject of evolution, which Conservapedia presents as a scientific theory lacking support. It also asserts that creationists, creation scientists and some secular science journals state that evolution is in conflict with the majority of evidence.[30] Conservapedia also criticizes the theory of relativity, suggesting that academics who question the theory suffer for their beliefs.[31]

In contrast to the mainstream viewpoint, Conservapedia's article states that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark.[32] Schlafly had defended the statement as presenting a valid alternative to evolution.[3] Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb."[33][34][27][7] An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention, a page which Schlafly has asserted was intended as a parody of environmentalism.[27] As of March 4 2007, the entry has been deleted.[35] Science writer Carl Zimmer points out that much of what appears to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory can be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile.[36] On March 19, 2007, the British free newspaper Metro ran the article Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes articulating the dismissal of Conservapedia by the Royal Society (The British academy of science), saying "People need to be very careful about where they look for scientific information."[29] English Wikipedia's policy allowing both CE/BCE and AD/BC notation has been interpreted as anti-Christian bias.[37][34][38]

Licensing of content

Conservapedia allows users to "use any of the content on this site with or without attribution." However, the copyright policy also states "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees."[39] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has raised concerns about the fact that the project is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a similar copyleft license, stating that "People who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results".[6]

Other editorial policies

Editing is disabled for most users between 1:00AM and 6:00AM (EST).[40] Additionally, the site has stated that it prohibits users from editing entries on the site from IP addresses due to concerns over vandalism and defamation.[4] While Wikipedia allows both American English and British English to be used on its articles[41], Conservapedia states on its "Manual of Style" page that "American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome". It prefers that articles about the United Kingdom use British English, while articles about the United States use American English, to resolve editorial disputes.[42] Initially, Schlafly[28] and other Conservapedia editors[5] considered Wikipedia's policy allowing British English spelling to be anti-American bias. The "Conservapedia Commandments" also require edits to be "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" and that users make most edits on their site quality edits to articles; accounts that engage in what it considers "[u]nproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits" may be blocked. The commandments also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edits that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam.[23]

Reactions and criticisms

Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales says that he has no objections to the project, stating "free culture knows no bounds," while acknowledging that sites such as Conservapedia are directly in line with Wikipedia's goals.[43] Wales denied Schlafly's claims of bias on Wikipedia.[6] Two Conservapedia editors were quoted as giving favorable views of Conservapedia in a June 2007 Los Angeles Times article about the website.[10] However, the Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies[7][44] and factual relativism.[7][45] Conservapedia has also been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from the perspective of creationism.[27][1] Tom Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about religion than conservatism and that it "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia [than Wikipedia itself.]"[6] Matt Millham of the military-oriented newspaper Stars and Stripes called Conservapedia "a Web site that caters mostly to evangelical Christians".[46] Its scope as an encyclopedia, according to its founders, "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[47] APC magazine reports this to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[48] The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting relativism with the false dilemma that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts."[7]

Allegations of racism and homophobia have also been raised against Conservapedia.[49] Brian Murphy, writing for the Ohio State University student newspaper The Lantern, considered Conservapedia's statement about Democratic senator and 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action" as "idiotic and despicable".[50] Some Conservapedia editors urged that it be changed or deleted, but Schlafly responded by asserting that the Harvard Law Review uses racial quotas and by stating: "The statement about affirmative action is accurate and will remain in the entry."[51] Bryan Ochalla, writing for The Advocate LGBT magazine, referred to the project as "Wikipedia for the bigoted."[52] On The Daily Show, a satirical news program on U.S. cable network Comedy Central, comedian and regular correspondent Lewis Black commented about the claim on Conservapedia calling homosexuality "an immoral sexual lifestyle" on its article: "On Conservapedia, 'gay' sounds way more interesting!"[53]

In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, attempted to edit the article on breast cancer to include evidence against Conservapedia's statement linking abortion as a cause of the disease but found his medical credentials being questioned by Schlafly and other Conservapedia administrators, all of whom ended the debate by deleting Lipson's edits and blocking Lipson's account.[10] Consequentially, Lipson and several editors started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they monitor and comment on Conservapedia. Some members of RationalWiki have admitted to having vandalized Conservapedia.[10][54] Evan Maloney, on the blog Splat! hosted by the Australian news site News.com.au, also noticed Conservapedia's support for the link on that article and argued that such a link is rejected by the scientific community.[45] Wired magazine reported that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers."[27] Iain Thomson, writing in Information World Review, has written that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[34] In November 2007, what is believed to be an automated click bot attack struck Conservapedia, driving many of their homosexuality-related articles into the top ten most viewed pages on the site.[55][56]

Lenski dialog

On June 9, 2008, New Scientist published an article describing Richard Lenski's 20-year E. coli experiment, which observed the bacteria evolving the ability to metabolize citrate — a rare and complex mutation.[57] Skeptical, Schlafly contacted Lenski to request the data; Lenski explained that the relevant data was in the paper and that Schlafly fundamentally misunderstood it. Schlafly wrote again and requested the raw data; Lenski replied that it was impractical to do so, and that he felt insulted by the brusque letters and offensive comments on Conservapedia.[58][59]

The Lensky dialog was reported across the web on news aggregate sites and weblogs. Carl Zimmer stated that it was readily apparent that "Schlafly had not bothered to read [Lenski's paper] closely",[60] and PZ Myers criticized Schlafly for demanding data despite not having a plan to use it nor the expertise to analyze it.[61] Ben Goldacre covered the story in his "Bad Science" column for The Guardian and printed Lenski's reply to Schlafly in full.[62]

References

  1. ^ a b c Coyle, Jake (2007-05-08). "Popular Web Sites Breed Political Copies". San Francisco Chronicle. Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-04-26.
  2. ^ a b "Andy Schlafly". Eagle Forum University. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Siegel, Robert (2007-03-13). "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-07-26.
  4. ^ a b "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia". Conservapedia. 2008-03-17. Retrieved 2008-03-17. Concerns over anonymous editors using IP addresses include the charge that Wikipedia's policy allowing IP edits results "in frequent defamation" (item 25) and "rampant vandalism that is overwhelmingly liberal" (item 29). Thus, it is stated that "[c]redible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses."
  5. ^ a b c Turner, Adam (2007-03-05). "Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right". IT Wire. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g Chung, Andrew (2007-03-11). "A U.S. conservative wants to set Wikipedia right". The Star.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ a b c d e the notion "that there's always a second, equally valid interpretation of the facts." Clarke, Conor. (2007). "A fact of one's own". The Guardian, March 1.
  8. ^ McBroom, Sarah (2007-03-27). "Conservapedia.com -- an encylopedic message from the right". Scripps Howard News Service. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ a b "American History 101". Eagle Forum University. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  10. ^ a b c d e Simon, Stephanie (2007-06-22). "Conservapedia touted as 'a conservative encyclopedia'". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
  11. ^ Zeller, Shawn (2007-03-05). "Conservapedia: See Under "Right"". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
  12. ^ a b c Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-01). "Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ a b c d Template:De icon "Conservapedia: christlich-konservative Alternative zu Wikipedia". Heise Online. 2007-03-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ "American History Lecture One". Conservapedia. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  15. ^ "Eagle Forum University". Eagle Forum University. 2007-04-30. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  16. ^ "Conservapedia statistics". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-05-10.
  17. ^ Decker, Edwin (2007-07-25). "Sickopedia". San Diego CityBeat. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
  18. ^ Holsinger, Kevin (2008-05-09). "The Case Against Mental Inbreeding: Debate Topics on Conservapedia". Daily Kos. Retrieved 2008-05-22.
  19. ^ "Conservapedia:On liberalism". RationalWiki. 2008-04-04. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
  20. ^ "Liberal - Conservapedia". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  21. ^ Alterman, Eric (2008). Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America. New York, New York: Viking Books. p. 261. ISBN 0670018600.
  22. ^ Dipietro, Anthony (2008-03-26). "Truth behind professors' beliefs". The Lantern. Retrieved 2008-05-03.
  23. ^ a b "Conservapedia Commandments". Conservapedia. 2008-04-12. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  24. ^ "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Wikipedia. 2007-01-21. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  25. ^ "Wikipedia:Attribution". Wikipedia. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  26. ^ "Conservapedia:Guidelines". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  27. ^ a b c d e Calore, Michael. (2007). What Would Jesus Wiki?. Wired Magazine, February 28.
  28. ^ a b "Today programme" (RealPlayer). BBC Radio 4. 7 March 2007 8:16am. Retrieved 2007-04-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  29. ^ a b "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes". Metro. Associated Newspapers. 2007-13-19. Retrieved 2007-03-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  30. ^ "Conservapedia:Theory of evolution". Conservapedia. 2007-03-09. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  31. ^ "Conservapedia:Relativity". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  32. ^ "Conservapedia:Kangaroo". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-06-20.
  33. ^ "Conservapedia:Relativity". Conservapedia. 2007-02-22. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  34. ^ a b c Thomson, Iain. (2007). "Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia 'bias'". Information World Review, February 28.
  35. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus". Retrieved March 4, 2007.
  36. ^ Zimmer, Carl (2007-02-21). "Loom Sources Sources". Scienceblog.com. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  37. ^ "Wikipedia:Manual of Style". Wikipedia. 2007-03-08. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  38. ^ Lewis, Shelley. (2007). "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Wikipedia's War on Christians, Patriots". Huffington Post, February 23.
  39. ^ "Conservapedia Copyright". Conservapedia. 2007-04-06. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  40. ^ "Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany". Conservapedia. 2007-08-05. Retrieved 2008-06-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  41. ^ "National varieties of English". Manual of Style. Wikipedia. 2008-04-11. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  42. ^ "Spelling". Manual of Style. Conservapedia. 2008-04-10. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  43. ^ Biever, Celeste (2007-02-26). "A conservative rival for Wikipedia?". New Scientist.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  44. ^ Read, Brock. (2007). "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing" Chronicle of Higher Education, March 2.
  45. ^ a b Maloney, Evan (2007-05-30). "Conservapedia: as accurate as a catatonic drunkard's line of urine". Splat!. News.com.au. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
  46. ^ Millham, Matt (2008-06-15). "Faith takes strange forms on the Web". Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 2008-06-25.
  47. ^ ECT: Conservapedia Retrieved on 2007-8-20
  48. ^ Wikipedia vs Conservapedia APC Magazine Accessed October 5, 2007
  49. ^ Caleca, Ben (2008-05-17). "Conservapedia: Taking a Stand for Oppressed WASPs everywhere". The Michigan Daily. Retrieved 2008-05-19.
  50. ^ Murphy, Brian (February 25, 2008), "Obama represents genuine change for weary Americans", The Lantern {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  51. ^ Schlafly, Andrew (17 February, 2008). ""Talk:Barack Obama"". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2008-03-27. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  52. ^ Bryan Ochalla, "Wikipedia for the bigoted." The Advocate, March 25, 2008, p. 12.
  53. ^ "Episode 12087". The Daily Show. 2007-06-27. Comedy Central.
  54. ^ "Conservapedia". RationalWiki. 2008-04-22. Retrieved 2008-04-22.
  55. ^ "Top ten most viewed pages on Wikipedia and Conservapedia". Boing Boing. Retrieved 2007-11-22.
  56. ^ "Conservapedia, Homosexuality, and pranked statistics". Infothought (Seth Finkelstein). Retrieved 2007-11-23.
  57. ^ NS article on Lenski breakthrough
  58. ^ "Conservapedia: Lenski Dialog". Conservapedia. 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2008-06-26.
  59. ^ Marshall, Michael. "Creationist critics get their comeuppance". NewScientist Blogs.
  60. ^ Zimmer, Carl. "Of Bacteria and Throw Pillows".
  61. ^ Myers, Paul. "Lenski gives Conservapædia a lesson". Pharyngula.
  62. ^ Goldacre, Ben (2008-06-24). "All time classic creationist pwnage". Bad Science. Retrieved 2008-06-24.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=222003894"