Conservapedia talk:Best of Conservapedia
Contents |
[edit] Updating this page
The introduction needs to reflect the new mechanism of of getting "best of" and section titles should be standardized and archives setup similar to WIGO. Lets get this page looking RW professional! I am going to bed though...... tmtoulouse heckle 03:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Why don't we make all the months subpages, like the archived ones, and just make this a list of links to them? Or only keep the current month on the page? And I agree on the archive names, we might have to arbitrarily split that 0712/0801 section into two, though. ħuman
14:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Oh, and add a "dead link" warning like at WIGO per bunchanumbers comment above? ħuman
14:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Explain to me this months as subpage idea more verbosely? 71.222.242.224 15:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Take each month, at least before the current one, and make a subpage, like "Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia/0804" for April 2008, and link to them all like we do at WIGO using dpl. Look at the WIGO CP page to see how it works. I hope that's slightly clearer. ħuman
15:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Like I am doing now? tmtoulouse heckle 15:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Probably... ħuman
15:33, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- What about that "news" subpage? Is that really either 0705, or from RW 1.0? ħuman
15:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- It is the archive from when we were dumping WIGO on the main page of the site, before "according to" changed that. Not sure what to do with it. tmtoulouse heckle 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Hmmm... is it pretty much May 07 then? It could get shoved into a WIGO archive (0705 or 0706) maybe. I suppose I'd better look more closely at it. How come it doesn't turn up in the "archive" list? I thought that showed all subpages... ħuman
18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- I shoved it in june as its own section. It is still "here" but I doubt anyone is attached to it so just found it a home. tmtoulouse heckle 18:45, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, I see it went bye bye. Makes sense. ħuman
18:46, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, I see it went bye bye. Makes sense. ħuman
- I shoved it in june as its own section. It is still "here" but I doubt anyone is attached to it so just found it a home. tmtoulouse heckle 18:45, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Hmmm... is it pretty much May 07 then? It could get shoved into a WIGO archive (0705 or 0706) maybe. I suppose I'd better look more closely at it. How come it doesn't turn up in the "archive" list? I thought that showed all subpages... ħuman
- It is the archive from when we were dumping WIGO on the main page of the site, before "according to" changed that. Not sure what to do with it. tmtoulouse heckle 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- What about that "news" subpage? Is that really either 0705, or from RW 1.0? ħuman
- Probably... ħuman
- Like I am doing now? tmtoulouse heckle 15:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Take each month, at least before the current one, and make a subpage, like "Conservapedia:Best of Conservapedia/0804" for April 2008, and link to them all like we do at WIGO using dpl. Look at the WIGO CP page to see how it works. I hope that's slightly clearer. ħuman
- Explain to me this months as subpage idea more verbosely? 71.222.242.224 15:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
- Oh, and add a "dead link" warning like at WIGO per bunchanumbers comment above? ħuman
[edit] Way too many for August 08
Need to prune that list by about 2/3rds Stile4aly 19:50, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
- You know it's automated now, right? It's any WIGO item that gets over ten net up votes, I think. Perhaps we should raise the threshold? (or get better voters!) ħuman
19:57, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Best of Best of
How about we load the server up even more and allow up/down voting on these, which would automatically a Best Of Best Of? DogP 21:31, 6 December 2008 (EST)
[edit] :(
I was looking through this for some good links and the (presumably) very best one, with 141 votes, was broken. Every single link was censored by our good friends at Conservapedia. From the description, it seems I'm missing out on some great stuff, along with all the other RWikians here... does anyone have logs of what was on those pages previously? 98.207.59.43 23:06, 30 December 2008 (EST)
- Click the little "img" beside each link, it all seems to be intact. --Kels 23:09, 30 December 2008 (EST)
- So that's what it's for! All right, thanks! (forgot to log in previously) Cheddarius 23:13, 30 December 2008 (EST)
[edit] 1 new link
http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Why_did_god_allow_9.2F11_to_happen.3F
conservapedist discussing why did god allow 9/11 to happend and other say "STFU atheist" because they dared to think god did something wrong. hilarious! 85.156.203.237 06:41, 3 March 2009 (EST)
- That is not quite how this page works. Nice try though, better luck next time. - User
06:47, 3 March 2009 (EST)
Odd anti- Americn comment at the end by JPatt.
[edit] Cutoff thingy not working?
For me, the cutoff value thingy doesn't work. Pick a value, Submit, nothing changes. Pick a value, hit enter, I go to the Search page. Am on Safari - could it be a browser issue? DogP 13:23, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
- No, because it works fine for me on Safari 4.0. Try altering the value in the box to 100, then scroll to the bottom of the screen, then set the cutoff to 20, scroll, and see if there's any difference. Wisest word Hoover! 13:29, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
- Ah, it appears that the page will be truncated when you raise the cutoff, but cannot become extended when you lower it. I can't think of any way to solve this except make Trent or Nx take a look at it. Wisest word Hoover! 13:31, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
- Works for me. -- Nx/talk 13:37, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
- So it works on Firefox, but not Safari. End this (fascistic) discrimination against users of Safari! Rise, comrades! Wisest word Hoover! 13:40, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
- I would, but I can't see where the problem is (other than a safari bug). The javascript replaces the entire contents of the div, it doesn't add or remove entries. -- Nx/talk 13:48, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
- OK, panic over. It appears to be working now. Perhaps I was drunk at the time. Must try harder next time. DogP 10:42, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
- I would, but I can't see where the problem is (other than a safari bug). The javascript replaces the entire contents of the div, it doesn't add or remove entries. -- Nx/talk 13:48, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
- So it works on Firefox, but not Safari. End this (fascistic) discrimination against users of Safari! Rise, comrades! Wisest word Hoover! 13:40, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
- Works for me. -- Nx/talk 13:37, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
[edit] Wheaton College is teh winnah!
Isn't it strange/interesting etc that of all our WiGO's, its the recent Wheaton College one that is winning? It was certainly a real classic, but it's just kind of surprising. Actually, looking over the list, it seems some of the real classics are pretty low ranked simply because we didn't have as many editors and votey bits back then. Interesting, this BOC list, isn't it? DogP 05:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- i.e. PNAS. Can anything really top a renowned journal bitchslapping Andy?

05:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah... nowadays, hitting +60 is pretty typical. Back then, 20-30 or so was tops. Oh well. This site is growing rabidly! ħuman
05:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Exactly. I wonder if we can't engineer a final bake-off somehow? Like, some way to create the all-time Top Ten WIGO's? Is there way to do that, to allow voting again on these? Is it all too much trouble and should I simply return to my fine 12-year old Rum? DogP 05:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Go back to drinking ;) Lenski is so last year, most "activity" and voting on this stuff is very ephemeral, very news-feedy. But that's no reason not to compile a personal best of best of list! ħuman
05:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, could we get Larron to create a scaled graph of best of? So each "peak" is equalized as time goes by? ħuman
05:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Now that's not a bad idea - he could scale BO #'s by average number of editors per week or month, no doubt. larron?!! LARRON??!!! I know Lenski is last year but in due course CP will be dead and we need something simpler - and more accurate - than this to synopsize their wingnuttery and batshittery. I mean, way down the list is Obama is a Muslim because he doesn't like dancing, no great non-German composers, Hollywood Breast Cancers, and Foxtrot's review of a movie he hadn't seen, just to name a few of my own personal all-time favs. There's just such good material in there, and this list just confuses it. DogP 05:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are numerous ways to weight the wigos - I applied a few of them here resp. here. Enjoy! larronsicut fur in nocte 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are, as usual, the most spectacular contributor to this damn site we've ever had Larron. It's a total pleasure to see you do your thing. I hope you make a fine living out of doing this kind of stuff, as you've got such a grasp on it. Thank, many thanks. I think this brings some major perspective on these WIGO's. DogP 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the flattering remarks! larronsicut fur in nocte 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- As a quick example, I'm thrilled to see that Bethany's episode of disagreeing with Andy's blatant sexism over the educational program for girls is, for many of the different weightings, the 'real' Number One. That's a very proper WIGO to have as number one in my book. DogP 19:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the flattering remarks! larronsicut fur in nocte 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- You are, as usual, the most spectacular contributor to this damn site we've ever had Larron. It's a total pleasure to see you do your thing. I hope you make a fine living out of doing this kind of stuff, as you've got such a grasp on it. Thank, many thanks. I think this brings some major perspective on these WIGO's. DogP 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are numerous ways to weight the wigos - I applied a few of them here resp. here. Enjoy! larronsicut fur in nocte 13:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Now that's not a bad idea - he could scale BO #'s by average number of editors per week or month, no doubt. larron?!! LARRON??!!! I know Lenski is last year but in due course CP will be dead and we need something simpler - and more accurate - than this to synopsize their wingnuttery and batshittery. I mean, way down the list is Obama is a Muslim because he doesn't like dancing, no great non-German composers, Hollywood Breast Cancers, and Foxtrot's review of a movie he hadn't seen, just to name a few of my own personal all-time favs. There's just such good material in there, and this list just confuses it. DogP 05:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Go back to drinking ;) Lenski is so last year, most "activity" and voting on this stuff is very ephemeral, very news-feedy. But that's no reason not to compile a personal best of best of list! ħuman
- Exactly. I wonder if we can't engineer a final bake-off somehow? Like, some way to create the all-time Top Ten WIGO's? Is there way to do that, to allow voting again on these? Is it all too much trouble and should I simply return to my fine 12-year old Rum? DogP 05:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah... nowadays, hitting +60 is pretty typical. Back then, 20-30 or so was tops. Oh well. This site is growing rabidly! ħuman
[edit] Common era (http://www.conservapedia.com/Common_Era)
"The established calendar dating system is based on the approximate birthday of Jesus, and no one disputes that. But this birth did not begin a "common" era, or any immediate change in history. The 1997 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives a date of 1889 for the origin of the term "Common Era," but there is no indication of who began using it then, and why. Some claim it is a substitute for an occasional reference to the "Vulgar Era," with "vulgar" being Latin for "common" but acquiring a derogatory English meaning over time.
While use of "Common Era" attempts to erase recognition for the Christian basis of the calendar, there are not similar attempts to erase non-Christian religious names from the calendar, such as the days of the week named after Norse gods. Numerous texts, particularly schoolbooks, have replaced "B.C./A.D." with "Common Era" symbols over the past decade.
Consider this frank question and answer with a rabbi about the use of "Common Era," which illustrates that the term "Common Era" did not come from Judaism:[1]
Dear Rabbi:
I would like to know why we say "before the Common Era" and "Common Era" (BCE and CE).
I mean, why do we call it "common?" ...
Dear Viviane [],
When I was a school boy I thought that CE stood for "The Common Error."
Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. "
- Laughed my head off
- Well, i guess if nothing else, it means the "liberals" get "one more word" to help balance the "number of new words" by which Andy judges all things.--
En attendant Godot""We are all born mad. Some remain so." 15:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Cuba
First sentences:
"Cuba is a prison island located in the Caribbean Sea, 90 miles south of "Freedom" aka Florida.
It is the only Communist apartheid tyranny in the Western Hemisphere and is considered the worst dictatorship in this world. Its former high level of freedom and prosperity was destroyed by the evil dictator Fidel Castro. "
And they call it pedia ?
[edit] New Leader
Andy's Conservapedia's Law surges ahead of Wheaton Collage by 26 votes and counting. Thoughts?
- I think we need to move the default threshold to 30 votes. - π 04:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- How about a percentage of the highest vote to date? Like 10%, or your suggestion, 30%? That way it will keep up with our ever tumescing readership? ħuman
05:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- How about a percentage of the highest vote to date? Like 10%, or your suggestion, 30%? That way it will keep up with our ever tumescing readership? ħuman
[edit] Just wrong
Hey guys. Feel free to delete this from the talk page, but mother of fuck, CP's so so so wrong. Anyone who'd pay for Andy's wisdoms, quite frankly, deserves them. 74.240.224.193 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Why don't it look pretty?
Like what the WIGO page itself and the archives does look like all pretty and that y'know? (With the pretty boarders around each entry and a green/yellow/red bar (but no up/down arrows of course)) DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] What the hell?
Why is "balls" listed here, and why does it apparently have a score of 186?! I would normally assume stuff like this is vandalism, but I have no idea how to vandalize an automatically maintained archive, nor how to fix it. Wehpudicabok (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, what IS up with all the 'Balls' entries? This is automated so it shouldn't be possible to rewrite? DogP (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Not funny
By describing events on conservapedia as worse than they are (the bias gradually grew probably because no one dared admit it was logically possible), and using humor as an apparent excuse for the misrepresentation, this page looks less neutral than conservapedia articles themselves.
I know that reading biased material for prolonged durations will cause one to write biased material to describe the biased material (who wants to be unfairly burdened by an obligation to be neutral?) so I cannot say that I wouldn't have done the same. But it's a much stronger disillusionment when learning of flaws from real dialogue without attributing the disillusionment to the opinions of RationalWiki. 24.85.161.72 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)