Hi all, Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/0...
Their "Conservapedia Commandments" are intetresting too: # Everything you post must be true and verifiable. # Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. # Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language. # When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE. # As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.[1] # Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
I find it bizarre that the CE/AD thing is so important that it rates a mention in the Commandments. And the "true and verifiable" is a cute reference to our "verifiable, not true" :)
Steve
On 3/6/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/0...
Their "Conservapedia Commandments" are intetresting too: # Everything you post must be true and verifiable. # Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. # Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language. # When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE. # As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.[1] # Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
I find it bizarre that the CE/AD thing is so important that it rates a mention in the Commandments. And the "true and verifiable" is a cute reference to our "verifiable, not true" :)
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve,
Thanks for the link.
It probably isn't that surprising that a site set by conservative Christians in the US is keen on AD rather than CE.
Many of the other policies have probably been cribbed from us given that we are the only online encyclopedia that publishes our guidelines online.
It will be interesting to see what they produce. I also wonder if they have compatible licenses.
Regards
*Keith Old*
On 3/6/07, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
It probably isn't that surprising that a site set by conservative Christians in the US is keen on AD rather than CE.
Sure, and personally I too prefer AD over CE, though I can understand the rationale there. But to make it a fundamental "commandment" up there with "true and verifiable" and "no opinion" (and of course, "American spelling" :)) surprises me.
I also find something odd in Conservapedia accusing Wikipedia of being "biased", but then taking pride in its own "conservative" stance. Does it implicitly accept that it, too, is "biased"? Or does it imply that a conservative stance is actually a neutral one, and therefore that Wikipedia is biased simply because it does not adopt that same conservative point of view?
It's all so confusing! But kudos to Jimbo for his nice quote.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/6/07, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
It probably isn't that surprising that a site set by conservative Christians in the US is keen on AD rather than CE.
Sure, and personally I too prefer AD over CE, though I can understand the rationale there. But to make it a fundamental "commandment" up there with "true and verifiable" and "no opinion" (and of course, "American spelling" :)) surprises me.
I also find something odd in Conservapedia accusing Wikipedia of being "biased", but then taking pride in its own "conservative" stance. Does it implicitly accept that it, too, is "biased"? Or does it imply that a conservative stance is actually a neutral one, and therefore that Wikipedia is biased simply because it does not adopt that same conservative point of view?
It's their site, and it seems at least that these rules are consistent with their philosophy.
I suppose the most irritating thing to them would be for atheist and otherwise corrupt Wikipedians to go there and edit completely within their rules, and let it be clear that these awful people are acting out of true Christian love.
Ec
On 3/6/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's their site, and it seems at least that these rules are consistent with their philosophy.
Actually they don't seem to define what their counterpart to NPOV is. For example, is it ok to have an article which states all the horrible things that communists have done, and none of the horrible things Americans have done? In any normal, even "conservative" encyclopaedia, this would still be a glaring omission. If you don't define some kind of bounds or some central position, the whole thing just becomes propaganda or worse.
Steve
On 3/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually they don't seem to define what their counterpart to NPOV is. For example, is it ok to have an article which states all the horrible things that communists have done, and none of the horrible things Americans have done? In any normal, even "conservative" encyclopaedia, this would still be a glaring omission. If you don't define some kind of bounds or some central position, the whole thing just becomes propaganda or worse.
Seriously people, it's called Conservapedia! What do you expect, a balanced and neutral look at the world? I mean, any time you name something after a political movement, it's going to be biased. I'm not going to be that trusting of the sushi-eating-cappucino-drinking-homosexual-academic-liberal-hollywood-elite-pedia either, at least not on stuff like religious topics (even though that particular tomb would describe me as a person fairly well ;).
--Oskar
FYI http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307....
On 3/7/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually they don't seem to define what their counterpart to NPOV is. For example, is it ok to have an article which states all the horrible things that communists have done, and none of the horrible things Americans have done? In any normal, even "conservative" encyclopaedia, this would still be a glaring omission. If you don't define some kind of bounds or some central position, the whole thing just becomes propaganda or worse.
Seriously people, it's called Conservapedia! What do you expect, a balanced and neutral look at the world? I mean, any time you name something after a political movement, it's going to be biased. I'm not going to be that trusting of the
sushi-eating-cappucino-drinking-homosexual-academic-liberal-hollywood-elite-pedia either, at least not on stuff like religious topics (even though that particular tomb would describe me as a person fairly well ;).
--Oskar
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/7/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
FYI http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307....
I'm sure that the whole "British spelling is bad!"-thing went over real well with the BBC people :D
--Oskar
On 07/03/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
FYI http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307....
I'm sure that the whole "British spelling is bad!"-thing went over real well with the BBC people :D
I notice how that's the one point that was ignored, despite it being the one that's most obviously false (especially in article naming).
On 3/7/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
FYI
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_wikipedia_20070307....
I'm sure that the whole "British spelling is bad!"-thing went over real well with the BBC people :D
--Oskar
Yeah, it's great to attack BE spelling on the BBC (it sounded to me like he was about to say "British spelling" before he changed it). It's a shame though, that the deletion issue wasn't explained better (it sounds like Jim Redmond's comment was cut off) - that the Conservapedia article went through AFD, and anyway, you shouldn't be "working hard" on a Wikipedia article about your non-notable website.
Yeah, it's great to attack BE spelling on the BBC (it sounded to me like he was about to say "British spelling" before he changed it).
It sounds like that to me too - I think "British spelling" would have been better. Dividing the world into USA and not-USA is not a very neutral classification...
On 3/7/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Dividing the world into USA and not-USA is not a very neutral classification...
Dividing the world into Sec. 230 content and non-Sec. 230 content is not neutral either:
"An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a
foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that
country or of another country whose extradition laws would allow for his arrest and
deportation. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person
for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a
criminal law elsewhere."
On 3/7/07, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually they don't seem to define what their counterpart to NPOV is. For example, is it ok to have an article which states all the horrible things that communists have done, and none of the horrible things Americans have done? In any normal, even "conservative" encyclopaedia, this would still be a glaring omission. If you don't define some kind of bounds or some central position, the whole thing just becomes propaganda or worse.
Seriously people, it's called Conservapedia! What do you expect, a balanced and neutral look at the world? I mean, any time you name something after a political movement, it's going to be biased. I'm not going to be that trusting of the sushi-eating-cappucino-drinking-homosexual-academic-liberal-hollywood-elite-pedia either, at least not on stuff like religious topics (even though that particular tomb would describe me as a person fairly well ;).
There's a difference between "We're a quality encyclopedia written from a political and/or social conservative point of view" and what Conservapedia is functionally right now.
It would be interesting to see focused POV encyclopedia projects spring up to offer alternatives to the WP NPOV and what WP systemic biases do exist (I believe that there's a tendency for both political and social liberalism among WP editors; I don't believe that it generally has a negative effect on article NPOV, but it is a mild systemic bias).
This Conservapedia project is not showing the types of rigor and scaling that will be required for it to rise to the challenge, however.
Maybe it will later, but it's not looking hopeful.
On 3/7/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between "We're a quality encyclopedia written from a political and/or social conservative point of view" and what Conservapedia is functionally right now.
It would be interesting to see focused POV encyclopedia projects spring up to offer alternatives to the WP NPOV and what WP systemic biases do exist (I believe that there's a tendency for both political and social liberalism among WP editors; I don't believe that it generally has a negative effect on article NPOV, but it is a mild systemic bias).
dKosopedia is one such project. It has been around since April 2004, with the following philosophy:
"The dKosopedia is written from a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take"
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Main_Page
This Conservapedia project is not showing the types of rigor and
scaling that will be required for it to rise to the challenge, however.
Maybe it will later, but it's not looking hopeful.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/7/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There's a difference between "We're a quality encyclopedia written from a political and/or social conservative point of view" and what Conservapedia is functionally right now.
It would be interesting to see focused POV encyclopedia projects spring up to offer alternatives to the WP NPOV and what WP systemic biases do exist (I believe that there's a tendency for both political and social liberalism among WP editors; I don't believe that it generally has a negative effect on article NPOV, but it is a mild systemic bias).
dKosopedia is one such project. It has been around since April 2004, with the following philosophy:
"The dKosopedia is written from a left/progressive/liberal/Democratic point of view while also attempting to fairly acknowledge the other side's take"
Oh, good, something new to look at. Thanks for the pointer.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/6/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It's their site, and it seems at least that these rules are consistent with their philosophy.
Actually they don't seem to define what their counterpart to NPOV is. For example, is it ok to have an article which states all the horrible things that communists have done, and none of the horrible things Americans have done? In any normal, even "conservative" encyclopaedia, this would still be a glaring omission. If you don't define some kind of bounds or some central position, the whole thing just becomes propaganda or worse.
It's up to them to determine at what pace such things will evolve, but at some point failure to do this will make them unable to properly define their own constituency. At this point it appears to support some philosophy of Christian conservatism, and that should sustain it for a while. If your example holds water there is ample reason to support its continued existence. Religious conservatives tend to acknowledge immoral acts as a natural part of the leftist landscape, but can be particularly outraged when their own supporters compund these same acts with hypocrisy.
Ec
on 3/5/07 8:55 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/0... 1172868789933.html
Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, is the perfect example of something I wrote in another thread:
Kids take notes.
Marc Riddell
On 3/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/5/07 8:55 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/0...
1172868789933.html
Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, is the perfect example of something I wrote in another thread:
Kids take notes.Marc Riddell
Roger Schlafly used to edit Wikipedia. Is he involved there too?
On 3/5/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/5/07 8:55 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/0...
1172868789933.html
Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, is the perfect example of something I wrote in another thread:
Kids take notes.Marc Riddell
Roger Schlafly used to edit Wikipedia. Is he involved there too?
Yes, he's the server administrator for Conservapedia.
On 3/5/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/5/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/5/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/5/07 8:55 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was
interesting:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/0...
1172868789933.html
Andy Schlafly, son of Phyllis, is the perfect example of something I
wrote
in another thread:
Kids take notes.Marc Riddell
Roger Schlafly used to edit Wikipedia. Is he involved there too?
Yes, he's the server administrator for Conservapedia.
-- -george william herbert
Well his mom is on the *Right Screws Left* hit list just like Brandt;
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/ftp.py?orgs/american//political-...
anyone who doesn't toe the party line just doesn't seem to have much a chance of making it in Wikipedia.
Oh please. Have you clicked "Random entry" there? See http://www.conservapedia.com/Cold_War for an example of the "quality" - or Richard Nixon, unless its been fixed.
Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi all, Not sure if I've seen any discussion of this, but this was interesting:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/wikipedia-foes-set-up-right-site/2007/03/0...
Their "Conservapedia Commandments" are intetresting too: # Everything you post must be true and verifiable. # Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. # Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language. # When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE. # As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.[1] # Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry.
I find it bizarre that the CE/AD thing is so important that it rates a mention in the Commandments. And the "true and verifiable" is a cute reference to our "verifiable, not true" :)
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/6/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Oh please. Have you clicked "Random entry" there? See http://www.conservapedia.com/Cold_War for an example of the "quality" - or Richard Nixon, unless its been fixed.
Says twice he resigned. Maybe overkill.
It formerly stated he was president of the Christian United States. And oh my, it was a Wikipedian who fixed it.
Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/6/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Oh please. Have you clicked "Random entry" there? See http://www.conservapedia.com/Cold_War for an example of the "quality" - or Richard Nixon, unless its been fixed.
Says twice he resigned. Maybe overkill. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/6/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
It formerly stated he was president of the Christian United States. And oh my, it was a Wikipedian who fixed it.
Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/6/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
See http://www.conservapedia.com/Cold_War for an example of the "quality"
or Richard Nixon, unless its been fixed.
Hate to disappoint y'all, but diplomatic historians name eras after the architects of alliances that keep the peace between major wars. For example, 1792-1812 Age of Napoleon; 1815-1848 Age of Metternich; 1862-1914 Age of Bismarck; 1919-1939 Age of Wilson; 1945-1972 Age of Churchill; and since 1972 the US has become at peace and a trading partner with our former enemies, so you guessed it, you are today living in the Age of Nixon. How many US Presidents have the honor of an historic Age named after them?
Perhaps the failure of so many to recognize that is the root of so much misunderstanding.
On 3/7/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
It formerly stated he was president of the Christian United States. And oh my, it was a Wikipedian who fixed it.
Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/6/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
See http://www.conservapedia.com/Cold_War for an example of the
"quality"
or Richard Nixon, unless its been fixed.
Hate to disappoint y'all, but diplomatic historians name eras after the architects of alliances that keep the peace between major wars. For example, 1792-1812 Age of Napoleon; 1815-1848 Age of Metternich; 1862-1914 Age of Bismarck; 1919-1939 Age of Wilson; 1945-1972 Age of Churchill; and since 1972 the US has become at peace and a trading partner with our former enemies, so you guessed it, you are today living in the Age of Nixon. How many US Presidents have the honor of an historic Age named after them?
Perhaps the failure of so many to recognize that is the root of so much misunderstanding.
I've never heard of any of these terms, except maybe the Age of Napoleon. Then again, I'm not exactly an expert in the field of diplomatic history - but still, if these are common terms, I'm wondering why pages like [[Age of Wilson]] are redlinks.
Johnleemk
On 3/6/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/07, Rob Smith nobs03@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/6/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
It formerly stated he was president of the Christian United States.
And
oh my, it was a Wikipedian who fixed it.
Rob Smith wrote:
On 3/6/07, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
See http://www.conservapedia.com/Cold_War for an example of the
"quality"
or Richard Nixon, unless its been fixed.
Hate to disappoint y'all, but diplomatic historians name eras after the architects of alliances that keep the peace between major wars. For example, 1792-1812 Age of Napoleon; 1815-1848 Age of Metternich;
1862-1914
Age of Bismarck; 1919-1939 Age of Wilson; 1945-1972 Age of Churchill;
and
since 1972 the US has become at peace and a trading partner with our former enemies, so you guessed it, you are today living in the Age of
Nixon. How
many US Presidents have the honor of an historic Age named after them?
Perhaps the failure of so many to recognize that is the root of so much misunderstanding.
I've never heard of any of these terms, except maybe the Age of Napoleon. Then again, I'm not exactly an expert in the field of diplomatic history - but still, if these are common terms, I'm wondering why pages like [[Age of Wilson]] are redlinks.
Johnleemk
Good question, and not without controversy (of course); in German it's refered to as "the Wiemar period", and remember the US never formally joined the alliance system the Wilson created.
I was reading a wik article the other day that made reference to "the Nazi seizure of power"; this article obviously was brought over from the German wiki, cause American sources always make light of the fact Hitler was democratically elected.