CreationWiki
(Undo revision 854253 by FreddiePorter (talk)) |
m (→Footnotes) |
||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
[[Category:pseudoscience]] | [[Category:pseudoscience]] | ||
| + | <span class="plainlinks">[http://mycaal.com/ <span style="color:black;font-weight:normal; text-decoration:none!important; background:none!important; text-decoration:none;">loan modification</span>] | ||
[[Category:Articles needing RWification]] | [[Category:Articles needing RWification]] | ||
{{keyword|wikikey=CreationWiki}} | {{keyword|wikikey=CreationWiki}} | ||
{{wikinav}} | {{wikinav}} | ||
Revision as of 12:36, 23 August 2011
| Goddidit! |
| Key claims |
| Science |
| Random articles |
CreationWiki is a free, online, wiki-based encyclopaedia written from what it calls a "uniquely creationist perspective".[1] Although it contains a mixture of half truths, outright lies and deliberate distortions, its authors, sadly, hope it will be taken seriously.[2]
Despite its wiki-based nature, editing the site is more difficult than it need be, as anonymous edits are disallowed and new accounts must be "requested" of the site's administrators, who may decline to create a new account for the requesting party. While the implied suggestion is that non-creationist requests will be denied, several non-creationists have been approved and contribute to the site.
Since CreationWiki's secrecy measures make its management and operation somewhat opaque, this article seeks to "pierce the veil," and explain CreationWiki to the curious masses.
Contents |
Mission, size and scope
CreationWiki sees itself as a serious site dedicated to furthering the peer reviewed body of creationist knowledge. As this goal is an inherent contradiction, it is fated to fail, but they take it seriously, nonetheless. Like other wiki-based encyclopaedias that were created as a reaction to the growing popularity of Wikipedia, it replaces Wikipedia's neutral point of view with its own "perspective". CreationWiki states quite clearly that "[a]rticles should be written from the creationist point of view (CPOV), which holds that the universe and life on Earth are the result of an act of creation by God."[3]
Statistics
As of November 25, 2010, CreationWiki had 4,816 content pages and "over 23 million hits", a fact they display proudly on the top of every page on the wiki.[4] Due to the restrictive nature of the site's editing, there has only been one edit per 100 page views (for comparison at the same time RationalWiki had 15.50 page views per edit).
Contributors
The site has hundreds of contributors, but the number of contributors who are "seriously active" is comparatively small, potentially limited to the founder, and one or two additional users.[5]
As of 25 November 2010, there are only 100 active users (users that have made at least one edit in the past three months).[6] By comparison, the CWCki, a wiki about 1 person, has 617 active users over 3 months.[7] Make of that what you will.
Some frequent contributors are young students who are either homeschooled or part of young-earth Christian creationist-oriented private schools.[8]
Caveat
CreationWiki actively discourages rational evilutionist minds from entering their site, by requiring account approval. However, account approval is an easy process, generally completed in under a day, and not apparently compassing any broad restriction.[9][10]
Treatment of non-creationists
Non-creationists are not allowed to edit content on CreationWiki.[11] Originally, the same editors are subject to being grouped in to a secret classification, known as "limited."[12] The class cannot be discussed, and the user with "limited" rights may not inquire as to what the status actually is.[13] Strictly speaking, someone without rights cannot inquire as to what rights he lacks.
Also, non-creationists are discouraged from editing "user talk" pages, and debate from them is similarly out of vogue. In a private e-mail with CreationWiki creator Chris Ashcraft, he explained,
“”Debate is only appropriate from those holding to a Creation POV.... Limit all posts to article talk pages. (Article talk pages only).... You may engage in peer review of articles, but do not use the UserTalk pages.[14]
|
It appears that more recently they have used functions of the MediaWiki software to split contributors up into three user groups: creationist, noncreationist, and undecided.[15]
Goal of "peer review"
One of CreationWiki's goals is to facilitate "peer review" of creation science, but it is unclear what "peer review" means in the context of CreationWiki. While the site disparages traditional peer review[16] - since it, of course, always finds creationist viewpoints wanting - it has its own method of peer review for CreationWiki articles, to which (apparently) no articles have yet been subjected.[17] One must wonder of what use peer review is, where only creationists may participate in the process fully and freely.
The misunderstanding of the goal of peer review runs deep: the site's founder states that the goal of peer review is to "uphold the majority consensus," and that atheists and creationists are not "peers" for the purpose of peer review. Presumably, the conclusion is that this is the only reason that creationist claims fail scientific peer review.[18]
Relationship with other wiki-based projects
CreationWiki has a medium-sized article on the conservative-based blog, Conservapedia.[19] In addition, many Conservapedia administrators have contributed to CreationWiki, including:
- CreationWiki founder Chris Ashcraft uses his own name at Conservapedia, but has only one contribution as of 21 June, 2009.
- Conservapedia's Conservative is CreationWiki's Creationist, Wikipedia's KDbuffalo, and our Newton.
- Conservapedia's TerryH is CreationWiki's Temlakos.
- Karajou uses the same name on CreationWiki.
- Mostly retired Conservapedia user Ymmotrojam is Tmajor at CreationWiki.
- Former Conservapedia administrator Philip J. Rayment was active there once, but now has his own biblical based encyclopaedia.
It currently has an article on RationalWiki[20] as well as a link from the article: Anticreationist forum debate tactics under the section Examples of anticreationist tactics [21], and another on its article about Redshift quantization.[22] Despite these links administrators have stated that linking to RationalWiki is illegal, although the word "RationalWiki" may be mentioned, and so is not subject to the same damnatio memoriae as "RationalWiki" faces on Conservapedia. [23]
CreationWiki also has an article on (or more properly a side-by-side "refutation" of an article from) EvoWiki [24] along with a link to the site.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ http://www.creationwiki.org/Main_Page
- ↑ http://www.creationwiki.org/CreationWiki:Policy
- ↑ CreationWiki - about.
- ↑ Statistics Page.
- ↑ As of 21 June 2009, "Ashcraft," and "Tsommer" dominated the "Recent Changes" list. Former active editors such as "Temlakos" now comment much less frequently or, like "Tmajor", have stopped entirely. As of the same date, one week of prior inference and analysis suggests that, at any time, around 70 changes per day is the average for CreationWiki.
- ↑ http://www.creationwiki.org/Special:ActiveUsers
- ↑ http://www.sonichu.com/cwcki/Special:Statisticsimg
- ↑ North Sound Christian Schools, for example.
- ↑ http://creationwiki.org/User:Human
- ↑ http://creationwiki.org/User:Roaring_Atheist
- ↑ CreationWiki administrator "Ashcraft" says as much, here.
- ↑ RationalWiki editors are almost immediately grouped into this section. AmesG, Wikinterpreter, and Alien have all suffered the same fate.
- ↑ CreationWiki administrator Tmajor blanks a discussion of the status,Template:Quotation over the objections of another administrator.
- ↑ Private e-mail exchange with Chris Ashcraft.
- ↑ Creationist list, noncreationist list and undecided list.
- ↑ See CreationWiki's article on the subject
- ↑ CreationWiki's internal peer review site is currently blank, as of 20 October 2007.
- ↑ Private e-mail with Chris Ashcraft, "That is the goal of peer reviews in general - to uphold the consensus position. Peer reviews are just what the phrase describes - reviews by peers. Atheists and creationists are not peers regarding theories formed from these worldviews. Only creationists can provide peer reviews of creationist views."
- ↑ http://creationwiki.org/Conservapedia
- ↑ http://creationwiki.org/RationalWiki
- ↑ http://creationwiki.org/Anticreationist_forum_debate_tactics
- ↑ http://creationwiki.org/Redshift_quantization
- ↑ See the userpage of one RationalWiki admin on CreationWiki, here.
- ↑ http://creationwiki.org/Creation_%28EvoWiki%29
| Welcome to the Wikisphere. Please proceed with caution: | ||
|---|---|---|
| A Storehouse of Knowledge - Anarchopedia - Citizendium - Ameriwiki - Conservapedia - Encyclopædia Dramatica - EvoWiki - RightpediaMetapedia - New World Encyclopedia - PESWiki - RationalWiki - RationalWikiWiki - RationalWikiWikiWiki - RationalWiki (français) - SourceWatch - TV Tropes - Wiki - Wiki4CAM - wikiFactor - WikiIndex - WikiIslam - WikiLeaks - WikiSynergy - Wikipedia | ||
