Andy On Wikipedia

Flippin, I agree with RobS. Let me also add this: we don't selectively enforce rules the way that Wikipedia does. On Wikipedia, numerous ideologically based acts of censorship are "justified" by selective application of complex rules. Not here. There have been many attempts to post obscene entries here in violation of our rules, yet the first time you object is to an entry that I sense you do not like for ideological reasons. Such selective invocation of the rules is for Wikipedia, not us.—Aschlafly 18:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Mtur, you raise a valid issue. Please keep in mind, however, that (unlike Wikipedia) this is an educational site. We're not developing search engines here, and we are teaching students. So fair use doctrine should apply.

I wonder, is Conservapedia on the 'road' to becoming a think tank? If so, it would be the first wiki-based think tank. —Ed Poor 10:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, that's a fascinating suggestion, and I think the the answer is "yes"! This project has always been a more intellectual and educational effort than Wikipedia.—Aschlafly 10:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Not to pick on Horace, but I think the vast majority of his edits have been on one topic: evolution. He has reverted my completely factual statement about Maxwell and evolution not once, not twice, but three times. I've explained to all that this is not Wikipedia. We have open minds here and go where the facts take us. If censorship of all criticism of evolution is what someone seeks, then Wikipedia is a better place for that person. We are not going to spend all our time on that issue, and we are not going to censor factual criticism of theories here. Tonight I'm going to work on the Theory of Relativity entry and that entry will allow well-supported criticism also. Thank you.—Aschlafly 22:14, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The student panel has been working on the Theory of Evolution. They plan some limited changes, I think. Keep in mind that this is a very popular page by visitors who expect something different from Wikipedia. There is no reason to have a Theory of Evolution page like Wikipedia's, which censors criticism of the theory. Folks can go there if they want that. About 250 words in our current entry does introduce and explain the theory in a concise manner, which is part of our rules. Then the reader should see material that cannot be found on Wikipedia. (Aschlafly)

This isn't Wikipedia, where stubs are overused. Sometimes a one-sentence entry is better than a 5,000-word entry. More words is not always better. Often more words are worse.—Aschlafly 23:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, stubs seem to be used differently at Wikipedia anyway, where it is a general tool, not an "I promise i personally will finish this article." notice. Orgone 00:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Stubs are used on Wikipedia as a bullying tool, a way to discredit entries someone may not like. An astounding percentage of entries on Wikipedia have some kind of stub, which are deadening in effect.—Aschlafly 00:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Nematocyte, we're not like Wikipedia here with thousands of words in rules. We are a meritocracy and Karajou is at the top. I'll look at your edits and see how your contributions compare. I can tell you this: someone who posts far more complaints than constructive edits is a candidate for blocking. We're building an encyclopedia here, not engaging in senseless argument. Thanks for your cooperation with this purpose.—Aschlafly 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Myk, I'm not ignoring your comment, which I agree has merit. I just don't know what to do about it. You are taking the position that is selectively enforced at Wikipedia, where anything unsourced, even if it is completely logical and compelling, can be deleted for ideological reasons. I don't think our rules say that here. We welcome logic here. We even welcome original work here when properly disclosed. I'm convinced that one reason (not the only reason) that Wikipedia bans original work is to allow ideologically motivated censorship. (Aschlafly)

I think this is an excellent idea. A key difference between Conservapedia and Wikipedia is that Conservapedia strives to be more educational. PalMD has suggested a good way to move that one step forward. Further suggestions on this theme are welcome.—Aschlafly 15:07, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, those are fantastic, Ed!!! I particularly liked your one about how cites to journalists are not always authorities. Wikipedia is atrocious in converting a journalist's (baseless) opinion into a factual assertion simply by citing to the journalist. (Aschlafly)

Folks, let's be candid. Wikipedia's image of popularity would go up in smoke if the public could see what people (especially teenagers) are really going to Wikipedia for: sex and gossip.—Aschlafly 22:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

We make all the wiki stats public. If you just tell us what more we need to do to make something public, we'll do it. But Wikipedia suppresses the key statistic of its popular pages. Increasingly I'm suspicious about visits sex-related entries driving up Wikipedia's traffic, and I wonder how much of that is by minors. Wikipedia is preventing public scrutiny of this by deleting those stats from the wiki package.—Aschlafly 23:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

My problem with Wikipedia is this: why doesn't it disclose up-front that it has adult images, and why doesn't it disclose its most popular pages as provided by the Wiki software?—Aschlafly 02:11, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

WhatIsGOingOn, if you want to censor conservative criticism, then please go to Wikipedia for that. Don't try to censor such speech here. And don't distract productive editors further here. Build some good entries before more talk, talk, talk. Thank you.—Aschlafly

In addition to Karajou's observation, the following statement (copied from above) by WhatIsGOingOn was an apparent attempt to censor Conservapedia's criticism of the official Virginia Tech poem: "Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this Trustworthy Encylopedia sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?" WhatIsGOingOn, if you want to censor conservative criticism, then please go to Wikipedia for that. Don't try to censor such speech here. And don't distract productive editors further here. Build some good entries before more talk, talk, talk. Thank you.—Aschlafly

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License.