Conservapedia talk:Censoring Lenski's RW ref

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The deletion debate for this article can be found at RationalWiki:Do we keep these CP-related articles?/Resolved.

The link will, I'm certain, vanish in time by conservative deceit accident. That's why I've saved the verbatim. SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:00, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I know. I just added the link to the article for the moment being. BTW, hi Susan! (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 08:04, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
I have .mht archives of all the significant points in the editing of that talk page, i.e. when something was removed or re-arranged, as well as an archive of the revision history in case it gets deleted and recreated. Jollyfish.gifGenghisOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:13, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Hi! Ed@ - nice to see you back; sabbatical? SusanG  ContribsTalk
Genghis: wonder how many copies of CP pages there are out there - gigabytes I shouldn't wonder. SusanG  ContribsTalk 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Kind of, Susan. Just a couple of weeks without RW, between crappy internet, football on TV and a travel - but it seems like ages ;-) (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 08:48, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

We should clean up the red links. I suspect one or two might actually have CP namespace articles. Or just make them links to the CP sources. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Title[edit]

Why all the abbreviations? 1's and zeros are cheap as long as we recycle the ones we don;t need. Can we move to "Conservapedia:Censoring Lenski's RationalWiki reference" please? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:03, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

CP censors RW; We censor Metapedia[edit]

I hate to be standing up for conservapedia but I don't think this is all that different from our rationale of not linking to metapedia. They consider our website to be a hatefilled godless cesspit of immorality and we consider metapedia to be the same. I don't have that much of a problem with the censorship from CP in this case. Or am I way off? — Unsigned, by: Damo2353 / talk / contribs

There is one difference: CP emailed Dr. Lenski, and said they would post his reply. However, they edited out a source he linked to, censoring him. If we wrote to someone at MP and asked them some questions, promising to publish their reply, we would committing the same error if we removed citations to MP from their reply. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

By the way, you can't even save the string "rationalwiki" on CP. I note above that we are fully able to type out "metapedia" here as often as we want. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

And though this might not mean as much, we do "censor" for slightly different reasons. We still talk freely about Metapedia, but part of the reason we leave no links is so as not to allow them web-traffic or boosts to their search-engine rank. Conservapedia does not allow any mention of the word "Rationalwiki", mostly because they simply don't want anyone to hear about it. UchihaKATON! 23:36, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree with all the points made above. Perhaps I have overstated the point somewhat. We have a revulsion to many of the ideas in Metapedia in the same way that CP has a revulsion to this website. It's difficult for us to understand this revulsion because it is totally different to the feelings we have for CP. For us its funny, for them, its deadly serious. They can't do a RW-watch or similar because they actually think we are evil. It is not, therefore, unreasonable that they would try to stop their users (particularly the homeschoolers they always rave on about) from accessing the site.

I accept the dishonesty of only partially posting a letter from a public correspondence but I am prepared to give them a pass for it. (Not to say the whole thing isn't hilarious - I just don't seem able to condemn them for it).Damo2353 01:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

It's not that we are evil for them - and they have a love-hate relationship with us anyway. It's that they know that we can open people's eyes. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 03:37, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps I should accept your word for it Editor, but I think that this is a different situation to that. Having read through the site exensively (though not, I suspect as extensively as you) particularly through the debates and essay sections I get the impression that these are mostly serious people who genuinely believe that they are right and that people who disagree/disbelieve are not only wrong but are actually evil. This is different to for example the Scientologists and the Scieno sitter which is designed specifically to stop people from opening their eyes because the creators and management of $ci know that the whole thing is a house of cards.Damo2353 04:13, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
I do admit I was wrong about us censoring metapedia though.Damo2353 04:13, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
Parodists aside, they do hate many many people and us even more for many reasons. Still, in my opinion the main reason for them to censor any occurence of the RW-word is the same that keeps China from granting free internet to its citizens: to keep new editors from discovering the truth about CP. Again, just my opinion. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 04:38, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually we don't[edit]

There is a big difference between these relationships. For one thing we have a full article about Metapedia - we certainly don't try to pretend they don't exist. Furthermore we do link to them see our little-used RationalWiki:What is going on in the Fourth Reich? . --Bobbing up 03:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)