From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, RationalWikians. I was brainstorming an endeavor to create a new conservative POV, Americentric, Christian-friendly encyclopedia that will hopefully be taken seriously. As a conservative, I am extremely upset with the "effort" Conservapedia has made to create such a resource. I want to create one that will be accurate, professional, and welcoming to people of all worldviews and stances. I have observed the other guys for some time and think many of them are not helping the cause. As seeing quite a few users here were banned users from Conservapedia, I thought some of you perhaps would be interested in this proposal of a competing wiki.

I know policy would be a huge issue, since it has pretty much the same worldview. I would do these things to try and fix the model. Here are some of the things that would differ from Conservapedia.

  • Editing and self-registration would be open 24/7.
  • Real names would not be required and inoffensive pseudonyms would be allowed and even encouraged.
  • I would cut out most of the non-encyclopedic content. That means no lectures, classes, Bible "translation", "atheism and obesity" etc. Maybe debates and a debate section. And I would not be opposed to essays in userspace and a directory to all of them.
  • I know this is one of the biggest ones: blocking. My policy would be one much more fair and less used than Conservapedia. People with offensive usernames would be invited to come back with an appropriate pseudonym or real name. Vandals would be blocked for a set time, in most cases much less than infinity or a period of years. Most would be less than a week, except in circumstances of repeated vandalism a longer block would be appropriate. And no more ideological blocks. And something not expected at Conservapedia: real block reasons. And I would not be opposed to installing something similar to RationalWiki's "vandal bin" if at all possible.
  • Articles would not be protected unless targeted for repeated vandalism. And then only for a set amount of time. Talk page debate would not be censored, but even encouraged. There would be no "90/10 rule" or similar censorship measure and I would be more than glad to discuss things on the talk pages. Except in mainspace, you would be able to write what you feel about an issue.
  • User rights is another big deal. I would initially allow movement of pages and upload rights for all registered users. Until someone from 4chan or something started uploading pornography, I would let all users upload. I would let IPs edit talk pages, but would require registration for edits to any other area of the site. As for promotion to administrator status, it would be a true "meritocracy" and not if I personally like you or not. 600 good mainspace edits, consistent dedication to the site, good conduct etc. would be good enough for a sysop promotion in my eyes. Again, worldview doesn't matter. As for bureaucrat, 3000 mainspace edits or so and the same requirement would be sufficient.

As for a name, I was thinking "Ameripedia" (hence my username here) or "Ameriwiki". Please give me suggestions if you have them.

Again, I would attempt to create a better and more credible resource that is family-friendly. I would not censor articles like "RationalWiki" or reproductive anatomy (just it be purely scientific) like Conservapedia has done. I would just attempt to cover those in a Christian, conservative family-friendly way. I guess I would initially have it hosted on a wiki farm like Shoutwiki or Wikkii if I were to create this site. Feedback? Anyone interested? --Ameripedia (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a noble cause - but then again, so did Conservapedia when it was first envisioned. It's one thing to be conservative, but what does that entail? Especially on the religious side of it? The minute creationist/YEC stuff is being quoted as fact, you're going to run into problems. Then you can either debate your life away, as PJR does on ASoK, or pull down the barriers as CP does.
Either way - having an encyclopaedia with a stated POV is going to give you problems. And if you say you're going to present all POV, well, then you're just another WP. That said, as long as you don't silence dissent, and shoot Ed Poor, Karajou and Ken the minute they show up at your door, you should be ok. --OompaLoompa (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reading, Sir OompaLoompa (excuse me if I spelled that incorrectly). To address your comments, I personally am an Old-Earth Creationist, but would welcome Young-Earth views as well. I really don't mind "debating my life away". And I would never start "pulling down the barriers as CP does". And I would present the conservative views as fact, but would allow sections on other POV. And this was meant to be different from CP, so I would never silence dissent. And on your last comment, I see not why Ed Poor, Karajou or Ken would want to come to the future Ameripedia. But if they came, I would be reluctant to let them in, but would anyway. But the minute I get "satirical" articles (leave the "funny to The Daily Show and all them) on atheism, taxonomy on random birds (which is evolutionary in nature anyway) or "stubs" on prepubescent girls and the like as you guys document here and is elsewhere, I would have to put my foot down. Otherwise, I open the door to them (though still don't see why they would want to come).--Ameripedia (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
conservative POV, Americentric, Christian-friendly encyclopedia - What's wrong with Wikipedia on any of those counts? I do believe you're trolling. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No sir, I am not. This is a serious proposal.--Ameripedia (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Old Earth creationism is a broad church. Which particular brand were you thinking of going with? I ask because the brand you chose would decide how far yo were going to depart from scientific evidence.BobSpring is sprung! 15:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
(ECx2)Assuming good faith, I don't understand why you want to make an encyclopedia about conservatism anyway. If you're interested in creation issues and don't like CP then you could help out PJR on ASoK instead of reinventing the wheel. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah.. But that's YEC.BobSpring is sprung! 15:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Just because PJR is a YEC doesn't mean he doesn't allow articles on OEC as well. A clown is a clown whether they juggle or joke. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
To address Bob, I believe Progressive creation. What is ASoK, exactly? And about "reinventing the wheel", I guess you could say that, though I was just trying to create a new wiki that is politically conservative and accepting of Old-Earth Creationism and one that is much more democratic than the existing.--Ameripedia (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

First off, welcome to Rational Wiki.  :-D
Second, I'll give your article the reading it deserves before commenting on its specifics.
Third, I was thinking of a wiki of the same name, or similar, as a way of dividing CP, seeing that there was a WikiChristian, I figured on a wiki based on American exceptionalism (me, I'm from Canada). It would be a wiki open to Christians, Jews, Atheists, even Muslims who rank USA as #1. It would be a wiki that wouldn't give a rat's ass about what people from other countries think, but would be open to all true Americans regardless of religious or philisophical views.

Have you checked out aSK? or Category:Christianity?

My suggestions.
1. Work out a decent licensing policy. CP, WP, and RW are good; asK--I'm not so sure.
2. Which articles would be allowed when it came to sex: penis, vaginas, BDSM, or tribadism?
3. What kind of nude pics, if any, would you allow? If none, would you recommend other sites?
4.Will you have wikis in other languages? Wikipedia is in +200, Anarchopedia in several, and RW now has a few extra.

But whatever you choose, good luck.  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Info on ASK is here. I guess that Progressive Creationism would result in fewer conflicts with the reality based community than other versions. Good luck.BobSpring is sprung! 16:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Civic Cat. I am a Christian and OEC personally, but really didn't make a big deal out of that sector of the site. I like your proposal of an Americentric encyclopedia. I will welcome anyone of any (or no) religion to edit. Your proposal sounds great. I was essentially recreating Conservapedia with much more lenient policy, but that really does sound like a better endeavor. Can't we use Wikipedia's licensing policy? Or something similar? And on the sex articles, I would allow articles on reproductive anatomy and orientations. But on things like BSDM, I'm not so sure. Perhaps if they were done in a family-friendly way. And nude pics, I would restrict those to anatomical purposes usually. And I'm not sure if this will appeal to audiences in other languages, but if people want them, I'll be happy to make them. Does this answer all your questions?--Ameripedia (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Family-friendly BDSM? (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably not.--Ameripedia (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Some of the more lurid flavours of Fanfic might also be added to the list. (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Oops. Forgot about that Bob.
Again, my idea was to divide up CP. Also keep in mind, an explicitly pro-American site, much less a jingoistic American site, might not sit well with the other 95% of the world's population. America has squandered a lot of goodwill these past 10 years. "Can't we use Wikipedia's licensing policy?" Jimbo would likely like it; but what would you and your pals like? There are a bunch of licensing possibilities. I suggest you check the WP articles on such. The reason I bring up sex is that on one hand you have puritans who are censorial. I figure that if you are a Christian, you are more vulnerable to attacks by them (for instance, it'd be one thing if Lady Gaga did a show topless, another if, say, Amy Grant did). On the other hand, what about the Christian teen who's wondering what all this homosexuality stuff, gay-bashing stuff, or BDSM stuff is, or if it's true if [some pop star] had to go to the hospital to get his stomach pumped out because there was sperm in it, or if Prince got a few ribs removed so he could auto-fellate himself. If Andrew Schlafly won't tell the Christian teen the truth about these things, WP or maybe even RW, will. What about nude art, such as David, in the WP article on the Renaissance? or articles on Ancient Greece? As for other languages, about 3/4 of Wikipedia articles are in other languages. You might be missing an opportunity (as well as cool factor) The US is a noted Spanish-speaking country and 400 years ago, perhaps 100's of aboriginal languages were spoken. If you are a Christian, you might be interested in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic. I'm not too much of a wiki expert, but I think there are some interwiki stuff that should be considered if you're going to be multiligual. It's hard now, but would be easier in the future. Btw, here are the articles on the US in Old English, Scots English, Scottish Gaelic, and Nahuatl (Aztec).  :-) Cheers.Civic Cat (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a wiki of the same name exists here.Civic Cat (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
EC, EC EC. Actually your biggest problem will be initially attracting contributors. Why should they edit your wiki in particular? The suggestion that the POV should be "USA is best!" would at least guarantee some humour.  :-) BobSpring is sprung! 16:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
and here are the search results for Amerwiki.Civic Cat (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Bob has 2 points. I suppose if you want to tailor your wiki to American jingoists, fine, but you'll have fewer outside contributors, and the contributers you likely would get will be Charlie Danial fans and the like.Civic Cat (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Good luck to you User:Ameripedia! (= I won't partake). I'm a European, non-conservative (somewhat leftie) Christian friend of every other real religions except evil cults. I think Christianity have nothing to do with political view-points as well as rationalism doesn't. I think RationalWiki is neutral ground between non-fundamentalist Atheists, and non-fundamentalist religion adherents (like myself), where skepticism and reason is to be kept apart from political and religious biases. Rursus dixit (yada³!) 10:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

An announcement[edit]

Here is the wiki I just started, Ameriwiki. It is officially open for all contributors. I've started a Main Page and a Community Portal so far. And to address the points made above by Civic Cat and others: I make no issue with nude art for historical purposes like the David. I'm using Wikkii's default licensing policy right now, the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. And as I said before, I'm open to other languages. And on the sex stuff again, I want to keep it as family-friendly as possible, and I understand your points. I'll try to keep the homosexuality and BSDM and all those initial articles purely scientific, and address the criticisms from conservatives and Christians in a separate article (or at the very least a separate section of the article). Charlie Daniels fans? I suppose so, but there are other pro-American camps. Thanks for your interest.--Ameripedia (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? MOAR conservative wiki?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Name nitpicking.[edit]

To me, a conservative-centric and Christian-centric wiki named "Ameri-anything" implies that there's something un-American about being non-conservative or non-Christian. Poisoning the well and all that. Abadidea (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if anything it should be called conservawiki or conservapediOH MY GOD. ONE / TALK 11:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Naw, Schlafly n' Co. would be up George's arse if he renamed it Conserva-anything.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The REAL Ameriwiki[edit]

The REAL Ameriwiki George Fitzgerald founded is continuing on in the form of [REALWIKI! This is the true conservative wiki George intended. --Elvis is King (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What no Taylor Swift article? BicyclewheelModerator 19:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Why would I include an article on the vile seductress, the daughter of Lucifer? --Elvis is King (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)