[WikiEN-l] Conservapedia

[Daniel P. B. Smith]

> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at 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.