From: "David Gerard" dgerard@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.