Re: [asa] Conservapedia

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Thu Mar 01 2007 - 17:17:17 EST


It's not as light-hearted as you think.

Have you read the article in conservapedia on kangaroos?

Have you had to endure the sight of your atheist colleagues laughing their
socks off at the fact that Christians apparently believe this nonsense?
Kangaroos floating on matting over the receding floodwaters to Australia?
Like Rich said earlier, I felt like I wanted to crawl under a rock. At
least one of my colleagues is a real scoffer, and this gave him plenty of

Further I would disagree with you that conservapedia is not intended to
embrace the NPOV principles of Wikipedia. They market themselves as an
alternative to Wikipedia which THEY say is biassed.

The sad fact is that it started as an "anyone can edit" site, but then lots
of scoffers started vandalising the articles, putting in obscene comments
etc, and they were obliged to stop any editing from new people.

If at some stage they re-open the site, I would suggest that Christians here
should attempt to contribute in a respectful manner (and that means with a
great deal more respect that creationists are treated often on this list).

I've probably blown my four post limit by now so will not post further


On 3/1/07, Terry M. Gray <> wrote:
> Iain and Jack,
> The accusation of hacking came from your comment about getting an
> account. Obviously, the maintainers of the conservapedia don't want
> just anybody to have an account. Your wanting to get an account and
> add an article that appeared to be contrary to their purposes just
> struck me the wrong way. I would suggest that conservapedia is not
> like wikipedia (other than it uses wikipedia technology). There is no
> neutral point of view in conservapedia. It has a "conservative" point
> of view. I have often thought about having an ASA wikipedia on the
> history of the ASA, topics of interest, etc. There would be group
> authorship but it wouldn't be open the way wikipedia is. It would be
> by people committed to the purposes of the ASA.
> Sorry to be so heavy-spirited in what I know was a very light-hearted
> thread. And, as some have noted, the whole operation may be a bit of
> a hoax.
> TG
> On Mar 1, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Iain Strachan wrote:
> > Dear Terry,
> >
> > I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
> >
> > I wasn't proposing that I or anyone on ASA should "hack" onto the
> > conservapedia website.
> >
> > What I was proposing was that I should, in the same spirit as
> > Wikipedia, be able to obtain an account (as Indeed I have one on
> > Wikipedia), and that I would contribute a balanced and neutral
> > article on Theistic Evolution. An encyclopedia is supposed to be
> > unbiassed, and conservapedia promotes itself as an encyclopedia. I
> > therefore felt it was appropriate that they should have an article
> > on TE.
> >
> > The reference to "hacking" was to the practice that often occurs on
> > Wikipedia where other people try and distort the neutrality of
> > articles by deliberately manipulating the text to bias it towards
> > their own point of view. A fascinating example of this may be
> > found on the Wikipedia article on "Electrical Sensitivity", where
> > opposing factions are each trying to tweak it towards their viewpoint.
> >
> > I was suggesting that we should try and see if a genuinely
> > unbiassed and neutral article on TE would suffer a similar fate &
> > if it did to note the changes on a blog site and ask the question
> > whether the conservapedia people are really interested in lack of
> > bias (their criticism of Wikipedia is that it is liberal-biassed).
> >
> > So - to clarify - I was proposing to write an unbiassed article &
> > then see if it really remained unbiassed. I'm sorry if I gave the
> > opinion that I was proposing to hack the site. That was not my
> > intention.
> >
> > However, it appears impossible to edit the Conservapedia site at
> > the moment. You have to have a user ID to be able to edit the
> > articles (you don't in Wikipedia), and they have disabled the
> > facility to create a new account. It's easy to see why, because a
> > lot of mischief was created by people giving themselves accounts.
> > The spoof entry on "Tree Octopus" was originally created by a user
> > calling themselves "TrueReaganConservative", and was a slight re-
> > write of a spoof article from somewhere else.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In a pluralistic society/world don't groups have the "right" to
> > promulgate their views without critics' interference.
> >
> > Yes, but that's not the way Wikipedia (and other encyclopedias) are
> > supposed to work Wikipedia promotes the concept of NPOV (Neutral
> > Point Of View). Conservapedia is supposed to be a "clean"
> > alternative to Wikipedia, and hence ought also to adhere to NPOV
> > ideals. If it's just a site to promulgate conservative views, then
> > it isn't an encyclopedia IMO. For all I know, Wikipedia might well
> > be liberal-biassed, but if Conservapedia is to counter this, then
> > it must be scrupulously unbiassed.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Iain
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
- Italian Proverb
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Mar 1 17:17:48 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 01 2007 - 17:17:48 EST