Conservapedia

From Wikinfo

Search for "Conservapedia" on Wikipedia • Wikimedia Commons • Wiktionary • Wikiquote • Wikibooks • Mediawiki • Wikia • Wikitravel • Google (excludes Wikipedia) • Yahoo (excludes Wikipedia) • Creative Commons • WorldCat Amazon • Recent NY Times • Older NY Times.

For criticism see Criticism of Conservapedia

Conservapedia
File:Conservapedia Main Page.PNG Conservapedia's Main Page
URL	http://www.conservapedia.com/
Alexa rank	~48,800[1]
Commercial?	No
Type of site	Internet encyclopedia project
Registration	Optional (required to edit pages)
Available language(s)	English
Owner	Andrew Schlafly
Created by	Various
Launched	2006

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric, socially conservative, right-wing and Conservative Christian point of view. It was started in 2006^[2] by lawyer and history teacher^[3] Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly. He stated that he founded the project because he felt that the open-source web encyclopedia Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias.^[4]

Many editorial practices of Conservapedia differ from those of Wikipedia, some of whose policies Schlafly feels contribute to bias. For example, only users logged in to registered accounts can make changes to Conservapedia articles.^[5] Primarily, a set of policies known as the Conservapedia Commandments guides editorial procedures on the site on such issues as bias and accuracy.^[6] Additionally, articles and other content on the site frequently include criticism of Wikipedia as well as of its alleged liberal ideology.^[7]

Reception of the site has been generally negative, particularly in the form of accusations of bias and inaccuracy.^[8][9][10] Conservapedia has also been seen as part of a trend of conservative and Christian-themed Web sites imitating mainstream ones.^[2][11]

Contents 1 History and overview 2 Editorial viewpoints and policies 2.1 Religion and science 2.2 Political ideology 2.3 Licensing of content 2.4 Other editorial policies 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

History and overview

Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled, high-school-level students in New Jersey^[12][3] by Schlafly, a social studies and economics teacher for the Eagle Forum University educational program.^[13] He felt the need to start the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred.^[14] Although he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast", as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly became concerned about bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted his edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.^[15] Schlafly has expressed hope that Conservapedia becomes a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceives in Wikipedia.^[16][7]

The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's organization Eagle Forum, uses material for various online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.^[17][18][19] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.^[19]

The site uses the free MediaWiki software originally created for Wikipedia but is not affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikipedia's umbrella organization, the Wikimedia Foundation.^[17][2] The site's earliest articles date from November 22, 2006.^[16][17][4] As of October 2008, the site estimated that it contains over 26,300 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.^[20] Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include a daily-selected Bible verse^[14] and links to news articles and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.^[21] The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion, history, and politics.^[22][23] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages^[7] and at one point was the most-viewed page on the site.^[6]

Opinions criticizing the site rapidly spread throughout the blogosphere around early 2007.^[24] Schlafly appeared on radio programs Today on BBC Radio 4^[25] and All Things Considered on NPR^[4] to discuss the site around that time. In May 2008, Schlafly and one of his homeschooled students appeared on the CBC program The Hour for the same purpose.^[26]

Editorial viewpoints and policies

When he launched the online encyclopedia project, Schlafly asserted the need for an alternative to Wikipedia due to editorial philosophy conflicts. The site's "Conservapedia Commandments"^[27] differ from Wikipedia's editorial policies, which include following a neutral point of view^[28] and avoiding original research.^[29][30] In response to Wikipedia's core policy of neutrality, Schlafly has stated: "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] and "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."^[24]

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."^[16] 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 Wikipedia articles apparently prefer to 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. Redmond argued that Wikipedia attracts contributors worldwide and so must use CE notation to be more neutral, since CE notation has only a nominal, not numerical, difference with the AD format. He also cited the Wikipedia policies regarding citation of sources and cooperation with other contributors as basis for allowing any factual information to be added.^[25]

Religion and science

Many Conservapedia articles support the Young Earth creationist point of view.^[17][4][9] Its article on evolution presents it as a scientific theory^[31] lacking support and conflicting with much evidence in the fossil record that creation scientists perceive to support creationism. The entry also suggests that sometimes the Bible has been more scientifically correct than the scientific community.^[32] In contrast to the mainstream viewpoint, Conservapedia's article on the kangaroo states that all kangaroos descend from a single pair that were taken aboard Noah's Ark.^[33] Schlafly had defended the statement as presenting a valid alternative to evolution.^[4] Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb."^{[34][35][24][8]} An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention, Schlafly has asserted that the page was intended as a parody of environmentalism.^[24] As of March 4, 2007, the entry has been deleted.^[36]

Conservapedia asserts, based on selective evidence, that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer,^[10] while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first trimester abortion.^[37] In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, attempted to edit the article on breast cancer to include evidence against Conservapedia's statement linking abortion as a major cause of the disease but found his medical credentials being questioned by Schlafly and other Conservapedia administrators, all of whom ended the debate by deleting Lipson's edits and blocking Lipson's account.^[14] Consequentially, Lipson and several editors started RationalWiki, which offers criticism of and satirical articles about Conservapedia, its administrators, and the conservative Christian viewpoint which it promotes. 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.^[38] On March 19, 2007, the British free newspaper Metro ran the article Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes articulating the dismissal of Conservapedia by the Royal Society (The British academy of science), saying "People need to be very careful about where they look for scientific information."^[9]

The English Wikipedia policy allowing both Common Era and Anno Domini notation has been interpreted as anti-Christian bias.^[35][39][40] In July 2008, American Prospect editor Ezra Klein highlighted part of the Conservapedia article on atheism in his weekly column.^[41]

Political ideology

Many Conservapedia articles criticize values that its editors associate with liberal ideology. The Conservapedia article about liberalism lists grievances over liberal opposition to school prayer and other values that the editors consider important to conservatives.^[42] An article titled "Professor values" alleges that most college professors are liberally biased.^[43] Another Conservapedia article claims liberal teachings cause mental illness, citing Stephen Fry's bipolar disorder as an example.^[44]

Schlafly said in an interview with National Public Radio that Wikipedia's article on the history of the Democratic Party is an "attempt to legitimize the modern Democratic Party by going back to Thomas Jefferson" and that it is "specious and worth criticizing".^[4] He also has claimed that Wikipedia is "six times more liberal than the American public"; that claim has been labeled "sensational" by Andrew Chung of the Canadian newspaper The Toronto Star.^[7]

John Cotey of the St. Petersburg Times observed that the Conservapedia article about the Democratic Party contained a criticism about the party's support for same-sex marriage and associated the party with the "homosexual agenda".^[45] The Conservapedia entries on prominent Democratic senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama^[46] and Hillary Clinton^[14] are critical of their respective subjects. Its entry on Obama also asserts that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action"; Brian Murphy of the Ohio State University student newspaper The Lantern called that statement "idiotic and despicable".^[46] Some Conservapedia editors urged that it be changed or deleted, but Schlafly responded by asserting that the Harvard Law Review, the Harvard University legal journal for which Obama was once an editor and president, uses racial quotas and stated: "The statement about affirmative action is accurate and will remain in the entry."^[47] In contrast, the articles about conservative politicians Ronald Reagan, a former United States president who was a member of the Republican Party, and Margaret Thatcher, a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, have been observed as praising their respective subjects.^[14][48] Mark Sabbatini of The Juneau Empire considered the Conservapedia entry on Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate for the 2008 US presidential election a "kinder, gentler" and "far shorter and less controversial" reference for one wishing to learn about Palin in contrast with the respective Wikipedia entry, which Sabbatini observed being plagued by disputes over inclusion of potentially controversial details about her life.^[49] Sabbatini also mockingly noted the first comment in the talk page: "Don't consider me sexist but... she at least looks a woman. Not like that Hillary who'd grow moustaches if she could."

Licensing of content

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."^[50] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has raised concerns about the fact that the project is not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or a similar copyleft license, stating that "People who contribute [to Conservapedia] are giving them full control of the content, which may lead to unpleasant results".^[7]

Other editorial policies

Editing is disabled for most users when it is nighttime in the U.S.^[51][52] Additionally, the site has stated that it prohibits users from editing entries on the site by unregistered users due to concerns over vandalism and defamation.^[5] While Wikipedia allows both American English and British English to be used on its articles,^[53] Conservapedia states on its "Manual of Style" page that "American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for de novo or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome". It prefers that articles about the United Kingdom use British English, while articles about the United States use American English, to resolve editorial disputes.^[54] Initially, Schlafly^[25] and other Conservapedia editors^[6] considered Wikipedia's policy allowing British English spelling to be anti-American bias. The "Conservapedia Commandments" also require edits to be "family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language" and that users make most edits on their site quality edits to articles; accounts that engage in what it considers "[u]nproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits" may be blocked. The commandments also cite the United States Code as justification for legal action against edits that contain obscenities or are vandalism or spam.^[27]

See also

• List of online encyclopedias

References

External links

• Conservapedia home page
• Conservapedia on The Hour

This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Conservapedia. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. The text of this Wikinfo article is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.