Talk:Conservapedia

Template:Pbneutral

"Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from a Christian and American social conservative viewpoint."

Regarding the first sentence of the article, quoted above; I suggest removing "Christian and", making the sentence "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from a American social conservative viewpoint. Stating that Conservapedia is from a christian viewpoint is extremely marginal, to the point that it is factually erroneous.

Stating that it is from an American social conservative viewpoint has some substance, but still qualifies as an opinion, perhaps the first section should be rewritten, so opinions concerning conservapedia can be presented with improved clarity in the body of the article. As it is, I would say that this article's introduction is misleading, as well as inaccurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strawbrrymlk (talk • contribs)

Christian conservative encyclopaedia is supported by reliable sources in the article, look for 'Christian' and 'Conservative' in the references section and you'll find a number. Other than that why are you denying the bleedingly obvious? Is Conservapedia now actually saying it wants to go in a liberal direction or embrace atheists or something? Do they actually want to deny they are Christian or conservative or how would they want to describe themselves now? Is the Conservative Bible Project not now something they really feel happy supporting for instance? Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain what Strawbrrymlk meant, either, but maybe this is the "Conservapedia calls itself Christian even though they're just pushing a radicalized version of it that few Christians would identify with" issue? I think it's been brought up a few times over the years. But I'm really just guessing here myself, maybe the poster meant something else after all. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right Sid 3050. Would "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an American, conservative Christian viewpoint" be any better? Using an unqualified "Christian" in the descriptor seems a bad idea. --PLUMBAGO 07:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that wording sounds more accurate to me. I think it would be okaty to drop the 'social' and still point the link to the social conservatives Dmcq (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I stuck in that wording from Plumbago so lets see how it flies Dmcq (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

To summarize my point, just because someone self-identifies themselves as something, doesn't make that the most accurate description. Similarly, this article here should describe the combined editorial and wiki-based aspects of conservapedia.(<- belongs in another section of talk page?)

Wikipedia tries to be accurate, but ultimately it has to be based on reliable sources and the main reliable sources do describe conservapedia as conservative and christian. We can't go around writing our own opinions of them after reading the site, the article would really stink of POV then! Dmcq (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an American Conservative and Christian viewpoint" would be acceptable, I think. --TK-CP (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the point that some of us are making is that it's a very particular kind of Christian viewpoint. I don't think that any Christians I know would recognise it, for instance. Of course, the main thing for us to do here is to find support for a wording in reliable sources. And I know I didn't do this when I proposed the rewording above. Anyway, what can we dig up from, say, the media? Being a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I've just tried the Grauniad, but nothing especially useful there, and nothing immediately jumps out from Ars Technica either (though see here). And, taking the ecclesiastical route, the CofE, The Tablet and the Catholic Herald seem silent on the subject as well. Can anyone turn up anything? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is an often-used custom to take a sites own description, perhaps I am wrong about that? Degrees of Christianity isn't something Christians debate about much....only atheists and liberals, it seems. Most Christians find it suffices that Jesus Christ is accepted as Lord and Savior. I do know most organizations and sites take me as an accepted interpreter of what policy and precepts are. --TK-CP (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Note: "Citation needed" tag placed by Psygremlin with the following edit summary: "citations please, no unfounded claims of expertise here." ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 12:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is often used, because it is often an effective way to describe the nature of a site. However, it will not always work. For example, I develop a website containing pictures of cats eating burgers, and have a description on the front page saying that the site is a database of theories concerning the duality of the wave and particle mechanics of light. This example is no where near the same as conservapedia, but it demonstrates that self-identification is not foolproof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strawbrrymlk (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we'd have to say 'it calls itself "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"' rather than saying 'Conservapedia is the trustworthy encyclopedia'. :) Dmcq (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, once again we have an impasse generated by editors here, who just by happenstance are editors at a site dedicated to CP opposition, with absolutely no willingness for compromise or cooperation, and unwilling to change the article itself without petty arguments, from what they have decided it should say. Nice. --TK-CP (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TK, your strong affiliation with Conservapedia is obviously revealed through your edits. Talk here and don't comment on editors. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom, except for the prominent fact that my user name reflects that affiliation, while others here are ashamed of whose interests they are protecting, and never divulge, by name or notation on their user pages here that conflict. Admins have previously stated here to be "Be Bold" and to edit, so your thoughts are superseded months ago. Thanks. --TK-CP (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There: I updated the statement to actually reflect the sources, along with adding an additional source and citing two more already-in-the-article sources. All of them state (or reflect, in the case of the blog) that conservatives have criticized Conservapedia. I'm not a huge fan of including the heavily opinionated blog piece, but since TK insists on proof, I would think this is the best that can be given: a criticizing blog entry written by a conservative editorial writer. I don't know what other proof can be given when it's already backed up with multiple reliable sources, in addition to a blog coming straight from a conservative's mouth head. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Buzzz! Wrong again, Super. You added a critique of one small part of Conservapedia, not the entire project. You cannot equate the criticism of ONE purportedly conservative blogger, with the phrase prominent people, lol. Maybe you could see your way clear, along with your compatriots, to try compromising for once, and accept the rather generous and fair changes I made? --TK-CP (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? You misunderstand me, and the edit I've made. I think you're either confusing edits together, or didn't look at it very closely. I am talking about this edit that I made. I did not add the reference to the blog (it was there prior to my editing), nor do I support the inclusion of the phrase "prominent people". I removed the phrase "prominent people", for the fact that I agree with you that the people mentioned are not "prominent political and religious leaders". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My apology, SH. Thanks. However, I will then be removing the linkage to that blogger complaining about the Bible Project, if it is still there, because he is not criticizing CP as a whole, but just one small part of it, so it is unfair to present it as reinforcement for saying CP (as a whole) has been criticized by this "conservative" blogger, when in fact he is not liking that one small project. --TK-CP (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. As for removing the link to the blog, go right ahead; in addition to what you said, it's better to not link to a biased blog entry when there are other sources available. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am out of my element with the rules of Wikipedia, however to my eye many of the "citations" that are claimed to voice criticism, are merely news articles where they are quoting someone else's criticism, and it is the reporters or bloggers opinion that the critic is a conservative. A few of the citations I looked at were spurious at best. I will need to ask for help from some unbiased old-hands here at Wikipedia about what a valid source is, and how far the stretching that the cites I looked at are allowed to go. --TK-CP (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

TK, this is not Conservapedia. We do something known to the world beyond that of your little website as "fact checking". If it's from a reliable source, it's greenlighted. That's all that needs to be said.--KentuckyFriedGunman (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the sources you speak of are the best sources. I highly recommend you take a look at WP:IRS. Sources that are "merely news articles where they are quoting someone else's criticism" are exactly what we're looking for. What Wikipedia wants are reliable, third-party sources that back up claims in articles. No one ever said that these sources that we are talking about voice criticism; they don't, and they don't need to. All we have to do is verify the statement that people from both sides of the political spectrum criticize CP by linking to a reliable source elsewhere that says it. If a reliable magazine article states that Conservapedia has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike, then that's all we need to say just that. We don't have to give "examples". We ourselves do not prove the statement. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia's policy is "verifibility, not truth". If a reliable source backs up a claim, it's good to go; if an editor disagrees with what the statement is, that's too bad, because it's been verified in a reliable publication. On another note, there are additional reasons why citing third-party sources that state that Conservapedia has been criticized by both parties is better than linking to people voicing actual criticism. Examples of criticism, in this case, are not the best option when we've got reliable sources that have already analyzed this. Examples are biased, and don't really provide what we might call educational content for readers; they may also require synthesis by the editors, which also isn't good. See WP:Synthesis. In reference to people being labelled as conservatives by the author of the article's judgement, I disagree with you. I remember that some of the sources cited more well-known persons that are more widely considered to be conservative; it's not just based on the view of a single reporter. I know you're looking for some more outside input, but that's mine. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Comment updated and edited for better understanding, wording, etc.; see my comment prior to editing here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of reliable sources, blogs should not be included except in quite special circumstances. Some by well known people who are an acknowledged expert on a subject or something like that sometimes qualify. I guess there aren't any Conservapediaoligists about. Something called a blog but really a newspaper article by a journalist with editorial control is also allowed. Dmcq (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Going along with what I said, let's make an example and take the article on the Ford F-150. You wouldn't say that it's a four-wheeled pickup truck, then link to an image of an F-150 to "prove" it. If you want to say how fast the car goes or say how much it can tow, you wouldn't link to a YouTube video that shows how fast the car goes or how much it can carry. Instead, you'd link to a page that, for example, lists the car's specifications. Similar scenario here. Another advantage of using more well-known, reliable sources is that they establish notability (though notability is really not a concern for Conservapedia at this point). Oh, and for an example of people who have criticized Conservapedia who are more widely known to be conservative, take a look at Andrew Sullivan; he does, however, self-describe himself as a libertarian conservative, and indeed has took to siding with the democrats occasionally. Jon Swift, another criticizer, does seem to hold more strict right views however. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just been pointed to this article, and this line in particular still doesn't sit well with me. The terms American, Conservative and Christian are terms that a wide variety of people identify with and who are not all, a cursory glance at the site in question informs me, represented by this site. If we need to have this opening line in at all, would it not be worthwhile to change it to something like "Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from the viewpoint of a right-wing American with <denomination> Christian values" or something similar? This is me speaking as an Irish Catholic living in the UK so I'll gladly sit quiet and nod along to anyone with more learned opinions but most of the above discussion seems to have been a bit derailed by talking about one user or another. Nilzy (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should change christian to creationist? Greggydude (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to follow the sources as far as is reasonable. Calling them Christian is not unreasonable and is a common description. Dmcq (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the flip side of the coin is the fact that claiming the opinions of Conservapedia are indicative are "Christians" without further qualifiers are offensive to a lot of Christians. I know they are to me. 81.149.145.36 (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Veracity

Would it not make sense to begin a section documenting the verifiable factual errors and omissions of Conservapedia? They are numerous and it should not be difficult to properly source material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbennett2007 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way I can see an example of a factual error appearing on Conservapedia appearing on this article is if it is notable and has caused some sort of incident that is worth noting. For an example, take a look at Wikipedia's own article on the reliability of itself, Reliability of Wikipedia. Imagine if we documented all the factual errors to have appeared on Wikipedia. It'd double the size of the site. Instead, all you'll find in that article are examples of some well-known and notable incidents. One of them even has its own article. The same standard should be applied here: unless a factual error in Conservapedia is notable due to its wide coverage and controversies, there really shouldn't be any, especially if we're talking about creating a section documenting the errors. This is an encyclopedia, not a place that analyses and records how other websites are doing. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with SuperHampster. It would be WP:Original research. We should only be writing stuff that has already be noted in reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, the "kangaroo" page is, for whatever reason, the first example of un-science on CP almost every time the topic comes up. It's appropriate to discuss that article. Beyond that, it's not WP's place to maintain a list of every single error on the page, especially since, as a wiki, CP's content is highly fluid (in theory, anyway). If such a list were to be written, CPians could easily go and correct every single error on it. There is already an entire wiki essentially devoted to refuting Conservapedia. Wikipedia's purpose is to document what makes it notable, not to refute it per se. Fishal (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Counterexamples to relativity

Just a heads-up to keep an eye open, this CP page is going the rounds of the blogs, even making it to New Scientist. There may end up being reliable material to work with produced. Just an FYI. Huw Powell (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth do they find quantum mechanics more acceptable than relativity? It certainly is a strange page. If they had titled it problems with modern physics it wouldn't have been quite so bad. Dmcq (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the very first edition and it was set up by Aschlafly and one of he problems he put in was that it contradicted action at a distance where Jesus cured a nobleman's son without going out of his way to their house. It seems tenuous but perhaps he sees quantum mechanics as explaining miracles and relativity as being against them? Dmcq (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also the conservative interpretation of of "relativity" as somehow equivalent to "moral relativism." Totnesmartin (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

A sort of gut reaction rather like the way some SUV owners would press down on the accelerator if they hear the words 'climate change'? I'd guess that sort of mentality would react negatively to the idea of a maximum speed dictated by nature as well. Disgust at moral relativism affecting acceptable physics, that's an interesting concept. That's a bit like Lysenkoism in Russia though less direct. I'll be most interested in seeing how all this pans out and what can be put in the article eventually. Dmcq (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The New Scientist was tipped off by (and gave credit to) the Talking Points Memo website, which ran this article about Conservapedia and relativity. It would be appropriate for our article to cite both New Scientist and TPM as having criticized Conservapedia over this issue.

I'd make the edit myself but I'm unhappy with the current structure of the discussion in the article. There's a section on "Conflict with scientific views", which mentions relativity, and then a later section on "Conservapedia and the Theory of General Relativity", which rehashes the New Scientist article in great detail. My suggestion is that the latter section should be condensed and incorporated into the former. The criticisms lodged by New Scientist and TPM should be mentioned in much less detail, with the ext links provided for readers who want to go to the sources. JamesMLane t c 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree with all that. I think it should take about half the current space and be with the other scientific weirdisms. There's too much quoted currently rather than it being a summary of the main points. Dmcq (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you guys have your own wiki to refute CP on? Are Wikipedia articles now little better than a current events magazine? And odd that such a collection of "intellects" could only find negative reactions, being the good and fair NPOV Wikipedia editors you all are! --TK-CP (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources that show positive reactions to Conservapedia's publications on general relativity, TK-CP, you are free to bring them up and add them to the article.

Anyway, upon seeing TK-CP's comment, I looked at the article myself, and I agree with JamesMLane and Dmcq - the section "Conservapedia and the Theory of General Relativity" is very long, and should be condensed and fitted into "Conflict with scientific views" where it also fits. Not only is it long, but the section was giving, in my opinion, massive weight to something that doesn't deserve a massive section of its own. In addition to that, much of it was original research Edit: Upon looking at it again, I realize that the material that I thought to be original research was actually covered by the source in addition to the rest of the content. As a result, I've condensed the section to a prose that mentions only points brought up in sources, and have merged that content in the section "Conflict with scientific views". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If a user had the time, and exhaustively read the page's history, it will show that ever single complimentary mention of Conservapedia has been removed eventually, so I no longer bother. I think aware users of Wikipedia do notice that, as the article virtually screams the POV of the editors who have controlled the article since its creation. Such ideological control gives Wikipedia a bad reputation, but this article is hardly the only one held captive.

That said, SuperHamster is to be commended for doing a good job of condensing the bloat that was recently added about a single topic on CP. Although it is still overly-long for something that is such a minute part of Conservapedia, Hamster has significantly improved it from what was there. We'll see how long it takes for the removed parts make it back. :P --TK-CP (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this site a parody?

My Friend sent me a link to this site, and at first I thought it was parody, until my friend told me that it is for real. I decided to create an account and was blocked after five minutes. The next time someone complains about Wikipedia, send them a link to this website.

However, the worse part that I cam across was this:

"Unlike Wikipedia, which bills itself as a democratic system and ends up functioning as a mobocracy, Conservapedia employs a hierarchy based on a merit system.

"Andrew Schlafly is the chief administrator and is the most prolific editor, followed by bureaucrats, administrators, and regular editors. Editors who contribute substantial content may be promoted to administrator and bureaucrat, or gain extra user rights such as blocking power and uploading images."

How does someone gain merit when they get blocked faster than the speed of light? Alec scheat (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion page about improving the article rather than the actual site. I would suggest if you hadn't actually written anything yet that a look at a wikipedia user page with an 'atheist' user box might have put them off. Rationalwiki spend their time worrying about them but I don't think it is a worthwhile investment of a persons time. Dmcq (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying that "Atheism" is off putting is the reason why so many people hate us. It is websites such as Conservapedia that help cause hatred not only towards atheist, but Gays, Muslim, etc. People have to start learning to accept that people have different opinions, and that they have to censor it any way possible. The only reason why website like these is created is because people are brought up at birth in things such as this. It all comes down the fine line of freedom of speach, and knowning what is not appropriate to say. Some of the remark made by Conservapedia fall under the line of being racist. But hey, thats only my opinion.

Also, would should we mention some of the groups that are trying to get rid of this site? Alec scheat (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is to make a free reliable encyclopaedia. It isn't a blog for people's personal opinions. RationalWiki is the only site which is notable in trying to combat them as far as I'm aware. Dmcq (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

ED, /b/, FSTDT, huge swaths of the blogsphere, etc. RW is hardly the only place people who don't approve of Conservapedia talk about it. Nuttish (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

If there ere others with citations I'm sure someone would have brought it up. Dmcq (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In point of fact, RW is not notable except for what a couple of members of the MSM have stated as its reason for being. That of course, is disputed by RW. --TK-CP (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick question - since this section has no bearing on improving the article, it obviously doesn't need to stay here on the live talk page. Does wikipedia policy favor simple deletion, or is moving to the most recent archive preferable? Huw Powell (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In the past, it was the common practice to simply delete off-topic discussion, but as you can imagine, this led to conflicts. Nowadays, it is advised that off-topic discussions be moved to the archives. See WP:TPO. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it Template:notaforum & archive? TheresaWilson (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pornography?

Just to clarify - I am a Rationalwiki admin. Now - Vandalism edits by both RationalWiki members and vandals from elsewhere have included the addition of errors, pornographic photos and satire. this sentence bothers me because I don't know of any RationalWiki members, or anyone else for that matter, uploading pornographic photos. As far as I know, the closest Conservapedia has come to hosting pornography was when current conservapedia admin accidently named a picture he had uploaded a pornographic name after confusing two seperate photos he had. Can someone give a good reason to include the sentence? Ace McWicked (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the citation and it doesn't seem to back up the assertion that RationalWiki members have inserted pornography. I think the text should be altered to correspond more closely to the source, it says A and B have inserted C and D but that is not the same as saying A has inserted C and D and B has inserted C and D. Dmcq (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been an RW member since March 2008 and have follwed CP since mid 2007 and can honestly say I have never seen any pornography from anyone. Ace McWicked (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the source too, and I agree with Dmcq's analysis. The source states that Conservapedia has been vandalized by both RationalWikians and vandals from elsewhere, then goes on to state that the vandals have inserted pornographic photos, among other things, without specifically citing RationalWiki as a source of that. I've gone ahead and removed the last sentence from the "RationalWiki" section that specifies this. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only that but to upload pornography one must be a sysop and have the right privileges. I have seen many parodists gain upload rights but have never seen anyone upload pornography. Ace McWicked (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

All incorrect, Ace. Back when the article was written, lots of users had upload privileges, and that is no longer so. In point of fact one of the Rational Wiki bureaucrats, Linus, uploaded several .gif images to CP, with a delay, that changed from what first appeared normal photos, that changed to Goatse after several seconds. The reporter said what she did, and I have checked with her recently, because the Rational Wiki administrators she interviewed readily admitted being involved with that sort of vandalism. --TK-CP (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What we need right now is neither Ace's or TK-CP's word on what is the truth (both are worthless in terms of the article), but a reliable source that states and verifies the statement that RationalWikians have inserted pornography into Conservapedia - otherwise, it should be removed. Whether or not the statement that RationalWikians have inserted pornography into Conservapedia is true, that does not matter in the least bit. Wikipedia's policy is "verifiability, not truth". It does not matter what Wikipedia editors do or do not know - we go by what the sources say, and as it stands, the source given does not verify the statement that RationalWikians have inserted pornography into Conservapedia; as such, it should not be in the article that RationalWikians have inserted porn into Conservapedia. I quote from the source:

In recent months, Conservapedia's articles have been hit frequently by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire [...]

No where does it explicitly state that the vandals that have inserted pornographic errors were members of RationalWiki. Now, because TK-CP restored the content that I have removed, it is to TK-CP's burden to attribute it to a source.

As for the email, that would fall under a self-published source. Self-published sources are typically not allowed; one of the only instances where it is allowed is when it is "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I would say that the reporter could very well fall under that, so if TK-CP does indeed have an email from the reporter of the source that states that RationalWiki members have inserted pornography, that may constitute as a reliable source, as shaky as it may be to use it. Now it comes to the fact that it needs to be published - how one goes about that, I honestly do not know at this point, and until it is, the statement that RationalWikians have inserted pornography into articles should not be there.

Would you approve of the statement being removed at this point, TK-CP? If there is still disagreement, we can take this to the reliable sources noticeboard, especially regarding the email. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

R. fiend, is there some reason for your reversion (other than to lay a 3-revert rule trap) of my putting back in place the original text "SuperHamster" removed? If you have some pertinent information that caused you to do so, please post it here, otherwise I will have to ask an admin to add it back, I guess. And the continued "rat-packing" by admins from RW is material to this particular article, because of the special circumstances between the two wikis. If one reads the Los Angeles Times article, one can clearly see the author meant what she said. Is it common practice anywhere in the world to so parse news stories on one particular topic, other than earth shaking events? --TK-CP (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer Superhamster, I respectfully submit it is his responsibility to source and prove the Los Angeles Times reporter didn't mean Rational Wiki administrators, not me, because to the untold number who read, and have recently read, it is quite clear what she meant. It appears it is a subject of confusion only to RW administrators and "wiki lawyers". And please do take the argument wherever you wish, Super. --TK-CP (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor that adds material, not removes it - otherwise, I'd have to prove to whoever made this edit that Mr. Wolin was indeed not a clown. It's not a big deal, anyway: I've brought up the issue here. We'll see what other editors think about this. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The quote in question says "by interlopers from RationalWiki and elsewhere. The vandals have inserted errors, pornographic photos and satire...". I think it is fairly clear that this creates a group (people from RationalWiki and elsewhere) and then goes on to say that this group - which by definition includes at least some individual editors of RationalWiki - engages in cyber-vandalism. So I must side with TK on this one, just on the parsing of the language itself. That being said, if the content is re-instated, it is important to differentiate between individual RationalWiki members and "RationalWiki" as a group, which clearly states that it does not support or condone vandalism. --Hojimachong^talk 00:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the current wording is fine, if we do keep it in the article? It goes, "Vandalism edits by both RationalWiki members and vandals from elsewhere have included the addition of errors, pornographic photos and satire." IMO, it's fine that way, as it doesn't make RationalWiki a group; if needed, though, we could state that "RationalWiki members, by their own admission". ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can't attribute pornography to RW then the sentence should be changed. Ace McWicked (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to read exactly how the article in question states it. N.B., I can personally verify that individual RW members have uploaded pornography to CP. Not that my statements are verifiable or citable, just throwing it into the discussion. --Hojimachong^talk 00:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but at the condoning of RW? When I mean is, a vandal could vandalize Conservapedia with porn who is also a Wikipedia member. That doesn't mean Wikipedia condones it...see what I mean..? Ace McWicked (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to get at, because given that situation, saying "Wikipedia members and other vandals uploaded porn to Conservapedia" would still technically be correct. It's all about what the source says, and the LA Times article clearly says that RW members are part of the group uploading the images. And it's different than saying Wikipedia editors have done it, simply because RW is so intrinsically tied to Conservapedia. I think the way suggested above, "Vandalism edits by both RationalWiki members and vandals from elsewhere have included the addition of errors, pornographic photos and satire" best presents the idea that the article is trying to state. I don't like that it says that, and would argue the veracity of the claim, but it's a verifiable, reliable source and we have to go by what it says, unless an opposing source of similar reliability can be found. --Hojimachong^talk 00:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then it should be noted the RW states it does not support nor condone vandalism? Ace McWicked (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a wp:BLP issue since it is talking about RW members, so the standard of verification is several notches higher. Since the wording is vague and difficult to parse per BLP it should just be left out. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:BLP#Legal_persons_and_groups, I change my mind and agree with Tmtoulouse. --Hojimachong^talk 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Domains?

I've noticed that I'm unable to access Conservapedia from my work domain (on breaks, of course). Does anyone know if Conservapedia has a policy of blocking certain domains or classes of domains (say, just to pick a random example, ".gov") entirely even from reading the site? That would be noteworthy, if true. And no, the block isn't coming from this end. If our system doesn't block access to any sites. It just puts of a warning splash page that your activity will be logged if you access anything they feel might be inappropriate.Prebys (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if Conservapedia blocks certain IPs from reading the site (editing is a whole different issue, of course), but I think this would be OR without a proper source, plus it'd be virtually impossible to get an impression of how many IPs Conservapedia prevents from accessing it (if any). --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I was checking to see if anyone had any additional information on this. I was unable to find any discussion of it anywhere.Prebys (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

CP doesn't block any domain from reading it, and I doubt if anyone in a position to do it knows how. We do block (as does Wikipedia) domains and ranges from known, continual vandals. I would also point out that as someone who has been in the SES, it has been United States Government policy that employees should not access non-work related sites, even on breaks, for over 12 years. --TK-CP (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to view CP from the domain of my old work. Ace McWicked (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)