Conservapedia:Hijacked articles

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims, authoritarianism, and deceit.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the Best of RationalWiki.
Trus me
Conservlogo late april.png
In-depth analysis

At Conservapedia, a hijacked article is one that is (1) locked by a sysop, and then (2) only edited by that sysop, except for a few random grace periods (which usually end up with a new protect when a "liberal" editor makes some changes). Note that locking the page forces any non-sysop to talk on the talk page, and hence make them more likely to violate the 90/10 rule. This reverses the process used on Wikipedia, where if an article is locked, no one edits it, while editors are encouraged to discuss their differences on the talk page.

Often, when called on this dishonest practice, the now-sole editor will deceitfully claim that the article is the work of multiple editors, referring to either other sysops who simply make minor edits, or editors who worked on it prior to the protection.[1] However, the article will still be heavily dominated by the "owning" sysop to the exclusion of others.

There is quite a long list of permanently locked articles at Conservapedia (including such controversial topics as Ping Pong and E-Sword), some of which qualify for the hijacked status.[2]

Examples of articles[edit]

red = protected, yellow = in transition, green = unprotected


Perhaps the most hijacked page on Conservapedia, the Evolution article doesn't even have any information about evolution — just supposed refutations (most of which are extremely weak, or just plain wrong). The page exemplifies a trend that is typical of Conservapedia. In an attempt to discredit evolution, the page attempts to promote the premise that the Theory of Evolution is deficient on the basis that several polls state that a large percentage of both medical doctors and the general populace are unsupportive of it. The links provided to back this up lead to information and polls from conservative/neo-religious think tanks such as the Discovery Institute, which is an appeal to a biased authority. Even if these polls were taken to be reliable and objective, citing them in this context would still be fallacious, as it would dually constitute an ad populum argument and an argumentum ad verecundiam. The mysterious "panel" contributed to the hijacking by closing edits and making one distorted version reign supreme. Of course, that doesn't stop Conservative from distorting the page whenever he feels like it. Various pictures of Hitler have begun gracing the top of this page 18 months after the page was locked, a rather blatant attempt at implementing the association fallacy. Also note, Young Earth Creationism and regular Creationism are also hijacked.


A relatively new hijacked article, but still subject to Pacman himself, Conservative. It was briefly opened for some "sleeping dragon" editor, who turned out to be an extinct dinosaur, and did nothing.


Why is Conservative so obsessed with homosexuality? We report, you decide.

One might also look at Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot, which has always been locked was only unlocked immediately after this article was written, and 97% of the edits are by Conservative.

George W. Bush[edit]

Permanently protected on August 31, 2007 (although DanH and TK have since edited it; "permanently protected" only applies to peons). It didn't matter much probably since George W. Bush was a lame duck, anyway.

UPDATE: It is no longer locked. And it's locked again!


Actually, the "Deceit" page isn't usually locked, so it doesn't follow the definition of "hijacked" given above. Instead, it's probably better termed a "trap page", or a lightning rod. That is, they make the text so offensive that a "liberal" editor cannot stand but to edit it, just to be instantly banned and the page reverted. This is why most of the edits are either by sysops or now-blocked editors (pie chart below).


Zach Johnson[edit]

Christianity is the most important facet of this athlete, according to Conservapedia. Alas, no peons can add any statistics or further information on him.


This is not to be confused with dragon. One might expect Philip J. Rayment to be the most prominent editor, but no, it's Conservative again! This article is frequently left unlocked, and, similar to "deceit," seems to be a trap article. Vandals simply cannot resist it.[3][note 1]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia[edit]

A true collaboration... between the sysops, at least. As King Andy's most edited article, critical thinking abounds! Also, the article is the site of some of the most "famous" edit wars between sysops. A short glance at the history shows some of the conflicts between Andy and Ken DeMyer.[4] It also gave occasion for the blocking of one of the site's leading administrators.[5] It has been unprotected in 2008, most likely as a way to trap editors into being blocked.

See also[edit]

Note on data[edit]

The graphs and timelines on this page were generated in Excel with some macros and the history pages at Conservapedia. The data was accessed at various times.


  1. Many one-edit vandals have been banned since this article was first written.


  1. See one example here.
  3. See the article history between 18 and 27 September 2007.
  4. Look to the page history, 16 September 2007.
  5. TK has blocked Conservative on numerous occasions relating to this article.