Debate:What if someone reasonable had started

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Bayes.

I've been wondering about this lately. I think it's clear that by this time, Andy Schlafly & Co. have pretty much established that they're not representative of the mainstream conservative movement. At best, Conservapedia represents the fringes of right-wing religious fundamentalist American conservatism, and at worst it's the ravings of your typical internet kook (Andy, in this case). To me, one of the main reasons it gets attention at all--whether that attention comes from us, the Daily Show, blogs, or the mainstream media—is that it's accessible by pointing your browser to For some reason, I seriously doubt anyone would give a rat's ass about it if it was registered under Andy' So my question is, what if a more reasonable, intellectual, conservative-minded person—say, George Will, or David Brooks, or whoever--owned and made it into something worth respecting? Obviously it would still have its critics, probably including many here, but the nutjobbery and douchebaggery levels would have to be significantly lower, right? Heck, if CP were run by a thoughtful individual, RW probably wouldn't exist! Just a thought.--Bayesupdate 01:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Yup. --Cheers,RyanIcons-flag-au.pngǂ wuz here ǂ 02:01, 3 January 2008 (EST)
"Someone reasonable" wouldn't have NEEDED to start Conservapedia, since to a reasonable person, Reality doesn't have a massive Liberal Bias. So I'll just be glad it wasn't started by some well-heeled ultra-con with any idea how to manage PR or people. Can you imagine what CP would look like if it had been founded by Rush Limbaugh, and he hired a few competent True Believers to manage it? --Gulik 02:47, 3 January 2008 (EST)
Yeah, but "Someone Reasonable" could still have started it for the purpose of, for instance, "clarifying, exploring, and discussing the conservative outlook" or something like that, and not for an encyclopedia. Presumably, reasonable people wouldn't go on a bizarre mission to destroy Wikipedia to satisfy their own version of reality.--Bayesupdate 11:00, 3 January 2008 (EST)
You people basically have the same thoughts as me on the subject. I'll add what else I think hasn't been said. Plus maybe this will be pushed into the limelight again. Well, for argument's sake I'm going to say that when we say Conservapedia, we are talking about a Wikipedia-style site, only written from a conservative perspective. Basically, I don't think it's possible for such a site to be started by anyone other than an ultra-right-winger. Any moderate would be perfectly satisfied with Wikipedia, which a moderate would see as giving the facts on things, also with a section explaining what people believe to be the positive effects/views/opinions on the subject, and another section explaining the criticisms of the subject. Any good Wikipedia article about something that is remotely possible to disagree with has such sections. To sum up: I don't think a moderate Conservapedia would exist; it would be either ultra-conservative or nonexistent. YB indeed! 13:48, 24 February 2008 (EST)
To follow on from YB, I think this one got worked out really fast. To make a comparison: WF Buckley's magazine is not the antidote to, say, the Grey Lady, or the MSM in general - it is "balanced" by other small magazines of opinion, such as the Nation. So the only thing a "sane" CP could be is kind of an extended dictionary of conservative thought and principles - perhaps an extension of, say, the Heritage Foundation. The major rifts that I am not sure how they could work through would be the paleocon/neocon split, and the subsumption of radical socially conservative religious precepts into the modern "movement conservative" GOP in the USA. New thought... how about defining what that "Conservawiki" would be based on conservative movements in other countries? As opposed to the twisted conservatism that no leader has really tried to enact (recently) in the US? (Except maybe Bill Clinton, with things like NAFTA and budget-balancing) Just my random, not worth what they used to be :(, six or seven cents.humanUser talk:Human 19:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

If was started by someone who is not an idiot , then there would be less or even no injust blocks or Hitler style "Purges". The site would contain better content (although it would still be conservative).

But if that where true there would be no reason to found RationalWiki, and so a thriving community with 7,330 articles, 77,426 users, and an forum would not exist.

Basiclally if someone reasonable had started the internet as a whole would be worse of then it is today.--Bobby 23:49, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Agreed. If Conservapedia had been reasonable, RationalWiki would no exist. I never would have gotten to meet any of you. I would still be puttering around in social obscurity on Uncyclopedia. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:00, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
True regarding meeting each other, which has been so valuable in many ways. Also, RA would have passed his classes last semester, and would be on his way to a productive life. As it is, he now hangs out on a dingy corner of the innertubes with a bunch of drunks and insomniacs... at such a ripe young age, yet! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

If someone reasonable had started Conservapedia, I'd have a lot less to laugh at. Thank you Schlafly for providing the world with such a rich source of humour due to misinformation/idiocy. InaVegt 20:28, 15 October 2008 (EDT)