From: "David Gerard"
<dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Latest comedic parody of Wikipedia
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
Well, actually I'd hoped that maybe a few sympathetic people would
drop over and help out.
Conservapedia has sort of brought it on themselves by positioning
themselves as a conservative counter to Wikipedia, but some of what
they're doing is an interesting idea.
The site has a sort of split personality, but part of it is supposed
to be a learn-by-doing exercise for teenaged students--Christian
homeschooled students, but that's beside the point. The idea is that
by trying to write encyclopedia articles about the subjects they're
studying, they'll learn about them.
The other part is to be the conservative alternative to Wikipedia--
(yes, yes, I know, I don't think Wikipedia has a liberal bias,
either)--and a platform for Andrew Schlafly, so mixed in with
substubs about high-school topics are some fairly sophisticated legal
articles... it's a crazy mix.
I'd been reluctant to mention it here because I didn't want to
attract vandals, but Conservapedia has been mentioned in some liberal
blogs and Conservapedia in the last couple of days has become
inundated by a flood of vandalism. This is a pity, because Andrew
Schlafly, who is sort of the Jimbo Wales of Wikipedia, is for the
most part civil, and open to intellectually honest changes to
articles. Yes, he has some bees in his bonnet, and Wikipedia is one
of them. He is not going to ever believe that the Wikipedia article
on Conservapedia was deleted because of non-notability, not because
of liberal bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/
Conservapedia
But I've actually enjoyed working on a Wiki-based encyclopedia that
is so undeveloped that I can easily improve and add articles.
The current crop of vandals is pretty unpleasant. I have the feeling
that here is a parochial school whose doors are open, and bullies
from a nearby public school are coming in and writing obscenities on
the blackboards and throwing books off the shelves. As I say,
Conservapedia brought it on themselves by delusions of grandeur, but
just because someone says their sandcastle is Washington Cathedral is
no reason to kick it down.
If anyone reading this is so hostile toward conservative Christian
creationists as to be unable to keep a commitment to NPOV, please
don't come and vandalize Conservapedia, they're getting all the
vandalism they need.
But I really think it would be nice if a few experienced Wikipedians
would drop in, understanding that Conservapedia _is not Wikipedia_,
--the same practices and policies don't automatically apply--and help
ward off vandals and give this little project, which has its pleasant
aspects, a boost.