Conservapedia talk:Sysop namespace

Wow--bot automated copying from government sources. Really authoritative. Lots of "research." ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ and...? 12:14, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * But so long as they're not copying from an actual encyclopedia that's been released into the public domain, they're just fine. --Kels 13:17, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh, sure, legally they're fine. But what's the point? They're importing articles just to increase their article count. There's no intellecutal meat to their edits.

I see the whole copy-and-paste as desperate. Even if it's legally OK, it's still poor from an intellectual standpoint because it took them no effort to do it. It's like asking a student to write an essay, and having them hand in a photocopy from a website and get a grade. OK--it's not plagarism in this case, but they are still taking credit for something they didn't do.

If they were really interesting in creating a quality encyclopedia, why would they not actually write well-written, in depth, well researched articles? It undermines their already lacking credibility--why would I go to Conservapedia when I could go to a government website for the same information? And does an encyclopedia need 80 one or two sentence articles on shipping, or one well thought out article that describes shipping?

If this is how Andy "homeschools" kids, I'd be worried. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ and...? 13:30, 12 July 2007 (CDT)


 * If they were really interesting in creating a quality encyclopedia, why would they not actually write well-written, in depth, well researched articles?
 * Because that would have a Liberal Bias. DUH...  --Gulik 13:54, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I think what we are seeing is the result of the Kool Aid going sour slowly. Can anyone really imagine ashfly going on a copy/paste binge back in, say, February?  The "idea" of what they are "building" has become almost lost now, buried under the gung-ho fervor to make new "article count" goals.  Heck, I think I could single-handedly write a reasonably good conservative, pro-american, pro-christian 'cyclopedia with under 5000 articles.  Given, you know, 8 months and 50 homeschoolers to help me, it would be a piece of cake, finished by the end of the summer.  Ironically, first I'd send the freshly scrubbed kids to WP to learn how wikis work, markup, templates, etc.  The "goal" would be to do it in under 5000 articles. And membership would never be open to the public or "strangers". human be in 20:53, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Why use wiki format if it's not open to edit? This is one of my main issues with CP, it uses mediawiki then decides that access should be limited, image upload should be restricted, only sysops are real people, etc, etc. We have perfectly good html for making sites like that. Only then you couldn't get the meeja exposure for taking on the ebil lib'rul wackypedia. Andy may be a meh lawyer but he's a great self publicist. prettydilettante lies 21:08, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Wait, it's bot-automated? --Linus (plot evil tech) 21:19, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * The "idea" of what they are "building" has become almost lost now, buried under the gung-ho fervor to make new "article count" goals.
 * Once again, CP reminds me of the late, unlamented Soviet Union--this time, I'm reminded of their charming habit of setting industrial production quotas that HAD to be met, leaving the products' quality irrelevant. --Gulik 11:18, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I can't find it any more since things moved around so much, but Ed said something about writing a bot so that it would take stuff from websites and put it in CP; I think mostly it was going to be country data, but nonetheless, it's still bad. He even said he was going to make the bot slow on purpose. I'll look for it--... ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ and...? 08:48, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Read Conservapedia:Sysop:Public domain. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ and...? 08:54, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I add a quote in proof:

"Even if the material is in the public domain, credit still needs to be given to the author/creator of the material. If you don’t give credit properly (cite your sources), you could be accused of misuse of sources or plagiarism." Andy's uncited articles would be considered plagiarism at least in some contexts. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ and...? 11:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Impressive
Breaking into a protected namespace. Impressive. Most Impressive. Stile4aly 20:56, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Hey, I did it too… but kudos to Icewedge, who did it first. --Linus (plot evil tech) 21:01, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Someone block Linus for a second for being evil. And another second for not thinking of it first ;)  I wore out my blockbutton axing icewedge for pwning cp's "privacy". human be in 21:09, 12 July 2007 (CDT)
 * C'mon we all know it was the Foxpuppet. His first act as puppetmeyster after becoming a sysop is to pass on the secrets of CP's paste in haste competition, and that shortly after 'retiring' here in an attempt to cover his tracks. Auld Nick 04:43, 13 July 2007 (CDT)
 * No it was not the "fox puppet". Wikis were never made for secrecy it is acctualy really easy to get to the hidden pages. Ask human or wikiInterperter, i sent them both e-mails and you can query linus to he has come up with a way to which is probably the same as mine. - Icewedge 10:44, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Eighteen months on
Anybody know if these hidden namespaces are still being used? 07:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * The namespace were abandoned as they aren't actually hidden you just can't access them through the wiki unless you were a sysop. How ever if you knew the URL you could just jump straight too it. - User   08:01, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Well, does anyone know the URL?POWER! UNLIMITED POWER! You paid the price for your lack of vision 08:07, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 * Don't know, one of the older members might. They gave it because we were reporting on it and not long after they got the Conservapedia:Special Discussion Group. - User   08:46, 30 January 2009 (EST)