Jump to content

Conservapedia: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
official motto: a "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"
m re-add dropped word
Line 11: Line 11:
}}
}}
'''Conservapedia''' is an [[English language|English]]-language [[wiki]]-based [[World Wide Web|web]] [[encyclopedia]] project intended to challenge a perceived '[[liberal bias]]' at [[Wikipedia]]<ref name="Guardian">{{cite news | last = Johnson | first = Bobbie | date = 2007 | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html | title = Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia | work = The Guardian | date = [[2007-03-01]] }} </ref> by providing the general public with a "trustworthy encyclopedia".<ref> Official web site motto of Conservapedia [http://www.conservapedia.com] </ref>
'''Conservapedia''' is an [[English language|English]]-language [[wiki]]-based [[World Wide Web|web]] [[encyclopedia]] project intended to challenge a perceived '[[liberal bias]]' at [[Wikipedia]]<ref name="Guardian">{{cite news | last = Johnson | first = Bobbie | date = 2007 | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2024434,00.html | title = Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia | work = The Guardian | date = [[2007-03-01]] }} </ref> by providing the general public with a "trustworthy encyclopedia".<ref> Official web site motto of Conservapedia [http://www.conservapedia.com] </ref>
Its articles are written from a [[Social conservatism|socially-]] and viewpoint supportive of [[Conservative Christianity]].<ref name="heise"/><ref name="NPR_conservapedia">{{Cite web|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084|title=Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?|accessdate=2007-03-15}}</ref> Many of its articles<ref name="heise"/><ref name="NPR_conservapedia">{{Cite web|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084|title=Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?|accessdate=2007-03-15}}</ref> have been reported to support the [[Young Earth creationism]] point of view.<ref name="Metro">{{cite web|url=http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=41802&in_page_id=2|title=Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes|accessdate=2007-03-25|date=2007-13-19|work=[[Metro (Associated Metro Limited)|Metro]]|publisher=[[Associated Newspapers]]}}</ref>
Its articles are written from a [[Social conservatism|socially-conservative]] viewpoint supportive of [[Conservative Christianity]].<ref name="heise"/><ref name="NPR_conservapedia">{{Cite web|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084|title=Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?|accessdate=2007-03-15}}</ref> Many of its articles<ref name="heise"/><ref name="NPR_conservapedia">{{Cite web|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084|title=Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?|accessdate=2007-03-15}}</ref> have been reported to support the [[Young Earth creationism]] point of view.<ref name="Metro">{{cite web|url=http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=41802&in_page_id=2|title=Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes|accessdate=2007-03-25|date=2007-13-19|work=[[Metro (Associated Metro Limited)|Metro]]|publisher=[[Associated Newspapers]]}}</ref>


Andrew Schlafly, the site's creator and son of conservative activist [[Phyllis Schlafly]], stated that he founded the project because he felt [[Wikipedia]] had a [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]], [[Anti-Christian prejudice|anti-Christian]], and [[Anti-Americanism|anti-American]] bias.<ref name = AS>{{cite web | url = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084 NPR | title = Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather? | accessdate = 2007-07-26 | last = Siegel | first = Robert | date = 2007-03-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&oldid=189554| title=Examples of Bias in Wikipedia| publisher=Conservapedia| date=5 June 2007}}</ref>
Andrew Schlafly, the site's creator and son of conservative activist [[Phyllis Schlafly]], stated that he founded the project because he felt [[Wikipedia]] had a [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]], [[Anti-Christian prejudice|anti-Christian]], and [[Anti-Americanism|anti-American]] bias.<ref name = AS>{{cite web | url = http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084 NPR | title = Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather? | accessdate = 2007-07-26 | last = Siegel | first = Robert | date = 2007-03-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&oldid=189554| title=Examples of Bias in Wikipedia| publisher=Conservapedia| date=5 June 2007}}</ref>

Revision as of 15:20, 6 November 2007

Conservapedia
Conservapedia logo
Type of site
Internet encyclopedia project
Available inEnglish
OwnerAndrew Schlafly
Created byVarious
URLhttp://www.conservapedia.com/
CommercialNo

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project intended to challenge a perceived 'liberal bias' at Wikipedia[1] by providing the general public with a "trustworthy encyclopedia".[2] Its articles are written from a socially-conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity.[3][4] Many of its articles[3][4] have been reported to support the Young Earth creationism point of view.[5]

Andrew Schlafly, the site's creator and son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, stated that he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.[6][7]

According to the site's FAQ, Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled children, who wrote most of the initial entries.[8] Schlafly has said that he hopes the site becomes a general resource for United States teachers and works as a general counterpoint to the liberal bias he perceives in Wikipedia.[1][8]

Conservapedia is not affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikipedia's umbrella organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, although both sites use the free MediaWiki software. In addition to its role as a Christian-Conservative encyclopedia, Conservapedia is also used by Schlafly's "Eagle Forum University" program. Material for various online courses (e.g., American history) is stored on the site.[3][9][10] Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum.[3]

As of 26 October 2007, the site estimated that it contained about 18,316 articles.[11] Conservapedia's earliest articles date from November 22, 2006.

Conservapedia and Wikipedia - editorial conflicts

Conservapedia stated a need for an alternative to Wikipedia when it launched its online encyclopedia project due to editorial philosophy conflicts. Conservapedia's editorial policies are guided by Conservapedia Commandments, while Wikipedia's editorial policies are guided by a range of policies including neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability, No Original Research and attribution.[12][13][14][15] In contrast to Wikipedia's stated policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated that "It's impossible for an encyclopedia to be neutral. I mean let's take a point of view, let's disclose that point of view to the reader."[4]

Religion and science

One example of article content differences stemming from editorial philosophy conflicts is evolution. Conservapedia presents the theory of evolution as lacking support. It states that creationists, creation scientists and some secular science journals state that it is in conflict with the majority of evidence[16] whereas Wikipedia presents evolution as a biological process defined by observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[17][18][19] The site also criticizes the theory of relativity, suggesting that academicians who question the theory suffer for their beliefs.[20] Such accusations are not found in Wikipedia's article.[21]

Conservapedia's controversial views of science are not limited to the topic of biological evolution and relativity. Widely disseminated examples of Conservapedia articles that contradict the scientific consensus include the claims that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark. Schlafly defended the article as presenting a valid alternative to evolution.[22] Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb."[1][23][24][25][26][27] An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention, a page which Schlafly has asserted was intended as a parody of environmentalism.[24] As of March 4 2007, the entry has been deleted.[28] Science writer Carl Zimmer points out that much of what appears to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory can be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Dr. Jay L. Wile.[29]

English Wikipedia's policy allowing both CE/BCE and AD/BC notation[30] has been interpreted as anti-Christian bias.[23][31]

Politics

Another example is Wikipedia's article on the Democratic Party, which refers to the party's historical origins. Schlafly has claimed this is an "attempt to legitimize the modern democratic party by going back to Thomas Jefferson" and that it is "specious and worth criticizing."[4]

Patriotism

Conservapedia interpreted the policy allowing both British English and American English spellings,[32] as anti-American bias and had a policy that only allowed for American spelling on the site. Conservapedia's logo, which appears in the top left hand corner of every page (where the Wikipedia logo appears on Wikipedia pages), uses the flag of the United States.

Andrew Schlafly on Wikipedia

Schlafly said,

"Wikipedia does not poll the views of its editors and administrators. They make no effort to retain balance. It ends up having all the neutrality of a lynch mob." [3]

In a March 2007 interview with The Guardian newspaper, Schlafly stated, "I've tried editing Wikipedia, and found it and the biased editors who dominate it censor or change facts to suit their views. In one case my factual edits were removed within 60 seconds — so editing Wikipedia is no longer a viable approach."[1] On March 7, 2007 Schlafly was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's flagship morning show, Today, opposite Wikipedia administrator Jim Redmond. Schlafly raised several concerns: that the article on the Renaissance does not give any credit to Christianity, that many Wikipedia articles use non-American spellings even though most users are American, that the article on American activities in the Philippines has a distinctly anti-American bias, and that attempts to include pro-Christian or pro-American views are removed very quickly.[33] Conservapedia has asserted that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public", a statistic which has been criticized for its unscientific derivation.[34] [8] Schlafly has indicated that Conservapedia has not adopted what he considers "Wikipedia's complex copyright rules," adding that Conservapedia "reserves the right to object to copying of its materials."[35]

Reactions and criticisms

Creationism, conservatism, and bias

Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project stating "free culture knows no bounds" while acknowledging that sites such as Conservapedia are in line with Wikipedia's goals, [36] though he has denied Schlafly's claims of bias on Wikipedia.[8] The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism by the general public for factual inaccuracies[37][38] [25][39] and factual relativism.[25] Conservapedia has also been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from the perspective of creationism.[24]

Tom Flanagan, a conservative professor of political science at the University of Calgary, has argued that Conservapedia is more about religion than conservatism and that it "is far more guilty of the crime they're attributing to Wikipedia [than Wikipedia itself.]"[8] Its scope as an encyclopedia is limited: According to the founders, it "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective."[40] This has been reported by some to be representative of Conservapedia's own problem with bias.[41]

The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting the false dilemma that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts."[25]

Conservapedia, and more specifically its article on homosexuality,[42] was discussed and lampooned by comedian Lewis Black on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on June 27, 2007, being compared to the Wikipedia article of the same name ending with Black stating "On Conservapedia, Gay sounds much more interesting."

On March 19, 2007, the British free newspaper Metro, ran the article Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes. [5]

Censorship

Page histories show how quickly dissenting views are deleted. Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, attempted to edit the article on breast cancer to contradict Conservapedia's statement that abortion raises a woman's health risks, but found his medical credentials being questioned by the site's sysops, and Schlafly himself. The debate was ended by them, and Lipson was banned.[43]

After being blocked for his edits, Lipson and several other editors started a rival website, RationalWiki, from which they monitor and commentate on Conservapedia, and - by their own admission - coordinate vandalism of Schafly's site.[43] Wired magazine reported that Conservapedia was "attracting lots of derisive comments on blogs and a growing number of phony articles written by mischief makers." [44] Iain Thomson, writing in Information World Review, has written that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries.[23]

Licensing of content

The project is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a similar copyleft license. Jimmy Wales has raised concerns about this, stating that "People who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results".[8] Instead, Conservapedia allows users to "use any of the content on this site with or without attribution." However, the copyright policy also states "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees."[45]

Conservapedia does not allow users to use Wikipedia content or mirrors as a reference,[46] specifically listing the practice as a violation of its first commandment.[12] The exception to this commandment is "It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue."

References

  1. ^ a b c d Johnson, Bobbie (2007-03-01). "Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Official web site motto of Conservapedia [1]
  3. ^ a b c d Template:De icon "Conservapedia: christlich-konservative Alternative zu Wikipedia". Heise Online. 2007-03-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ a b c d "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-03-15.
  5. ^ a b "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes". Metro. Associated Newspapers. 2007-13-19. Retrieved 2007-03-25. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Siegel, Robert (2007-03-13). NPR "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". Retrieved 2007-07-26. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  7. ^ "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia". Conservapedia. 5 June 2007.
  8. ^ a b c d e f Chung, Andrew (2007-03-11). "A U.S. conservative wants to set Wikipedia right". The Star.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ "American History Lecture One". Conservapedia. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  10. ^ "Eagle Forum University". Eagle Forum University. 30 April 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
  11. ^ "Conservapedia statistics". Conservapedia. Retrieved 2007-10-27.
  12. ^ a b "Conservapedia Commandments, Conservapedia (21 March 2007)
  13. ^ "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (21 January 2007)
  14. ^ "Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia (21 March 2007)
  15. ^ ":Attribution Conservapedia:Attribution], Wikipedia on Conservapedia
  16. ^ Conservapedia. (2007).Theory of Evolution. Retrieved March 9.
  17. ^ Isaac Newton (1687, 1713, 1726). "[4] Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Third edition. The General Scholium containing the 4 rules follows Book 3, The System of the World. Reprinted on pages 794-796 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages.
  18. ^ "Introduction to evolution, Wikipedia (17 March 2007)
  19. ^ "Evolution, Wikipedia (19 March 2007)
  20. ^ See Conservapedia's article.
  21. ^ Compare with Wikipedia's article.
  22. ^ Robert Siegel (March 13, 2007). "Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?". NPR.
  23. ^ a b c Thomson, Iain. (2007). "Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia 'bias'". Information World Review, February 28.
  24. ^ a b c Calore, Michael. (2007). What Would Jesus Wiki?. Wired Magazine, February 28.
  25. ^ a b c d the notion "that there's always a second, equally valid interpretation of the facts." Clarke, Conor. (2007). "A fact of one's own".The Guardian, March 1. Cite error: The named reference "Clarke" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  26. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Kangaroo". February 23 version.
  27. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Theory of Relativity". February 22 version.
  28. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus". Retrieved March 4, 2007.
  29. ^ Zimmer, Carl. "Sources, Sources"
  30. ^ Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
  31. ^ Lewis, Shelley. (2007). "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Wikipedia's War on Christians, Patriots". Huffington Post, February 23.
  32. ^ Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
  33. ^ "Today programme". BBC radio. 7 March 2007 8:16am. Retrieved 2007-04-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  34. ^ Mackey, Rob (2007-03-08). "Conservapedia: The Word Says It All". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  35. ^ Conservapedia. (2007). User talk:Aschlafly, February 4 version.
  36. ^ Biever, Celeste (2007-02-26). "A conservative rival for Wikipedia?". New Scientist.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  37. ^ Read, Brock. (2007). "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing" Chronicle of Higher Education, March 2.
  38. ^ Mackey, Rob (2007-03-08). "Conservapedia: The Word Says It All". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-03-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  39. ^ Snide Remarks The Offical Website of Eric D. Snider Accessed October 5, 2007
  40. ^ ECT: Conservapedia Retrieved on 2007-8-20
  41. ^ Wikipedia vs Conservapedia APC Magazine Accessed October 5, 2007
  42. ^ "Conservapedia page on homosexulality".
  43. ^ a b Stephanie Simon (2007-06-19). "A conservative's answer to Wikipedia". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2007-11-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  44. ^ Wired Magazine Blogs Accessed November 6, 2007
  45. ^ "Conservapedia Copyright". Conservapedia. 2007-04-06. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  46. ^ [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservapedia&oldid=169610301"