There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
I have often written smaller rants and musings about Conservapedia as a project in mails and on talk pages. I'll try to use this subpage to present all or most of these thought-snippets in a more central place.
This isn't going to be some sort of "CP sucks because they push Creationism" argument. But I will look into how CP is doing, compared to their own set goals - even though that one will be kinda hard since you will be hard pressed to find any explicitly stated project goals that actually define CP's unique bias in any meaningful way.
Some of these things will most likely be covered by some of our articles. I will do a check later on, and then I'll try to decide how to proceed. Right now, this is just userspace musing without any form anyway.
Looking at the history, it's tempting to assume that the Blog Rushes screwed up everything for CP and that CP would have developed into a completely utopian site that gives a completely accurate and honest view of everything.
However, it's more likely that the Blog Rush simply acted as a catalyst and that things would have gone downhill anyway. The seeds had been planted before the initial Blog Rush, and even more seeds had been hastily planted during and after it.
Additionally, several wiki-experienced people joined CP and tried to help the project to the best of their ability during the Blog Rush... and then they were banned because they either got in the way of Andy's agenda or of a power-hungry sysop.
One year later, CP effectively consists of pure opinion or copy-pasted articles. (There are a few genuine and okay articles, but those are about subjects you could look up on Wikipedia without fear of "liberal bias".) How did it get so far? Where did all the people go, and why did they leave? And how did the community downsizing influence the site?
Biased, but trustworthy?
CP's Goals: "Why are we here again?"
Political Bias: "My side is right because I'm on it."
The Rules: "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose."
Beyond COI: "Who profits?"
Notes and order
- Intro and brief timeline
- The issue of bias and trustworthiness
- Goals of CP
- "The trustworthy encyclopedia"
- "Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here." (About)
- "The starting point for increasing your knowledge, your faith and the well-being of you and those around you is to understand concepts better. Conservapedia enables you to do that, and to impart what you have learned to others by editing here. The truth shall set you free." (About)
- "Nothing here has necessarily been reviewed or checked by anyone with expertise to ensure that it is accurate or reliable. USERS RELY ON INFORMATION HERE ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK. Conservapedia and its editors, contributors, sponsors, affiliates or anyone associated in any way with this project cannot guarantee the validity of any information found here, and shall not be responsible or liable in any way for any inaccurate or libelous information found here. Content of any given article may have been vandalized or modified by someone who lacks knowledge." (General disclaimer)
- "To convey knowledge free of liberal bias." (FAQ)
- Political bias
- Demonizing liberals and most of modern science
- Comparison: Obama, Dawkins, etc. vs. McCain, Coulter, etc.
- "Liberal [noun]" and the semantics and weasel words of "Liberals often use..." while at the same time denying that conservatives "often use...", too.
- Since "conservative" usually means "US far-raight conservative" on CP, does that make the rest of planet Earth liberal? Apparently (see also posts on "internationalism")!
- Sysops standing above them
- Rules are fuzzy and are subject to arbitrary interpretation
- Guidelines, personal rules (Crocoite), rules made after the fact
- Rules that don't exist, but which are still enforced (Notability, POINT)
- Rules that don't exist, but which are quasi-explicitly different from WP (COI, NPOV)
- CP becoming a Bizarro mirror of what they accuse WP of.
- Creationism, Atheism, Homosexuality: Conservative
- CreationWiki imports: TerryH
- ID: Freedom777
- Cui bono? Who profits?
- Breast cancer, abortion
- Andy's CP article currently doesn't mention the AAPS at all...
- On the flipside, the AAPS/JPandS don't mention Andy, either...
- And the entries on breast cancer or abortion also don't mention him...
- Breast cancer, abortion
- Goals of CP
- Why the community isn't growing
- Users are not paid, and it is not a privilege to edit on CP
- CP user "rights"
- You have to work hard to be granted the "rights" you have on Wikipedia from day 1
- Rights are being taken away again arbitrarily
- Some people have an easier time getting rights than others... HelpJazz, Iduan vs. Richard, MexMax, etc.
- Goalposts on Wheels
- Anybody is welcome to provide facts, even those supporting liberals...
- ...but Andy gets to decide what counts as "fact".
- Same goes for who counts as liberal/conservative, etc.
- Dawkins, Obama
- Again: HelpJazz and Iduan
- Parodist H(e)aven
- Confirmation bias
- Meritocracy vs. Mobocracy
- Block lengths chosen arbitrarily
- Unusually long blocks for minor things
- Banned! What I do now?
- Editor's Guide hard to follow since some sysops disabled their mail (memo to self: doublecheck)
- Also: Some bans come with the "Only Andy and I may undo this ban" disclaimer
- Andy often slow to respond
- Often, you have to admit some wrongdoing so you may get a "second chance" (also: Parole), even if you were unfairly banned.
- Effects of a small community
- Sysop duties
- Sysops are supposed to be janitors and police
- User rights limited to the degree that only sysops can move articles
- Community consists basically only of article-writers with sysop powers and no janitors.
- Maintenance work and queries are often left to rot (see Copyright HelpDesk).
- Some sysops basically only respond to direct, personal queries.
- AFDs, etc.
- Created during the blog rush
- Practically abandoned by the end of the Night of the Blunt Knives
- Are now completely irrelevant since sysops make arbitrary decisions based on favoritism and personal preference
- Also: Stub template recently
- United We Stand
- Sysop disagreement usually deleted from wiki
- Special Discussion Group
- Policy questions decided privately by mail - no chance of open discussion with users who are not part of the Cool Kids
- Sysop duties
Notes for sections that still need a place
- RW - The Inivisble Enemy
- Several sysops lurk, but nobody is allowed to mention the full name.
- Ken's shout-outs, sysops trying to force users not to ask questions
- cp:Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia
- cp:Conservapedia:General disclaimer
- cp:Breast cancer
- cp:National Cancer Institute on Abortion#Legal_Issues
- cp:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
- cp:Andrew Schlafly
- cp:Conservapedia:Contributor's guide