العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolCONSERVAPEDIA
(Redirected from Andrew Schlafly)
'Conservapedia' is a wiki and opinion-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism.[1][2] Andrew Schlafly, the site's creator and son of noted conservative Phyllis Schlafly, stated he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias. Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather? [3]
According to the site's FAQ, Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled children, who wrote most of the initial entries, not usually using facts, and mainly using opinions, many disproved.[4] 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.4 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.[5][6][7] Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum.
As of early September 2007, the site estimated that it contained about 16,300 articles. Additionally, the site had 13,000 registered usernames of which about 7,000 were permanently blocked (about 54%).[8]
Conservapedia Statistics
Conservapedia's earliest articles date from November 22, 2006.
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), , No Original Research and attribution.[9][10][11][12]
One example of article content differences stemming from editorial philosophy conflicts is evolution. Conservapedia presents the theory of evolution as lacking support and states that creationist scientists and some secular science journals state that it is contra-evidence[13] whereas Wikipedia presents evolution as a biological process defined by observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[14][15][16]
The site seems to also support a Geocentric Theory or view of the Universe (that the Earth is the the Center of the Universe). Their section uses biblical scripture quotes to justify their support: quote ''"Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations."'', implying that both theories are equal and usable.
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."2 In contrast to Wikipedia's core 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."2
English Wikipedia's policy allowing both CE/BCE and AD/BC notation[17] has been interpreted as anti-Christian bias.[18][19] Conservapedia also interpreted the policy allowing both British English and American English spellings,[20] as anti-American bias and had a policy that only allowed for American spelling on the site. However, their policy against allowing British spellings was later revised.
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." 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.[21] Conservapedia has asserted that, "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."[22]
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."Conservapedia. (2007). User talk:Aschlafly, February 4 version.
Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project and that "free culture knows no bounds"[23] though he has denied Schlafly's claims of bias on Wikipedia.
The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism by the general public for factual inaccuracies[24] [22]and factual relativism.[26]
Conservapedia has also been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from the perspective of creationism.[27]
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.[28] Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb."[29][30] 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. As of March 4 2007, the entry has been deleted.[31] 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.[32]
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.]" Its scope as an encyclopedia is limited: According to the founders, it "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective". [33]This is seen by many as a clear admission of bias.
The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting the notion that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts."[34] (See also false dilemma fallacy)
On March 19, 2007, the British urban free newspaper, ''Metro'', ran the article ''Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes''. The article ridicules Conservapedia for providing only one side of controversial content.[35]
Conservapedia, and more specifically its article on homosexuality,[36] 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."
Iain Thomson, writing in ''Information World Review'', has written that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries. Stephanie Simon, writing in the ''Los Angeles Times'', reported that:[37]
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". 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."[38]
Conservapedia does not allow users to copy content from Wikipedia (or use Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirror sites as a reference[39]), specifically listing the practice as a violation of its first commandment.
1. Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia Bobbie Johnson
2.
3. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
4. A U.S. conservative wants to set Wikipedia right Andrew Chung
5.
6. American History Lecture One Conservapedia
7. Eagle Forum University
8. .
List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
9. "Conservapedia Commandments, Conservapedia (21 March 2007)
10. "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (21 January 2007)
11. ", Wikipedia (21 March 2007)
12. ":Attribution Conservapedia:Attribution], Wikipedia on Conservapedia
13. Conservapedia. (2007).Theory of Evolution. Retrieved March 9.
14.
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.
15. "Introduction to evolution, Wikipedia (17 March 2007)
16. "Evolution, Wikipedia (19 March 2007)
17. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
18. Thomson, Iain. (2007). "Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia 'bias'". ''Information World Review'', February 28.
19. Lewis, Shelley. (2007). "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Wikipedia's War on Christians, Patriots". ''Huffington Post'', February 23.
20. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
21. Today programme
22. Conservapedia: The Word Says It All Rob Mackey
23. A conservative rival for Wikipedia?
24. Read, Brock. (2007). "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing" ''Chronicle of Higher Education'', March 2.
25. Conservapedia: The Word Says It All Rob Mackey
26. 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.
27. Calore, Michael. (2007). What Would Jesus Wiki?. ''Wired Magazine'', February 28.
28. Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?
29. Conservapedia. (2007). "Kangaroo". February 23 version.
30. Conservapedia. (2007).
"Theory of Relativity". February 22 version.
31. Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus". Retrieved March 4, 2007.
32. Zimmer, Carl. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/02/21/sources_sources.php
33. [ http://ecommercetimes.com/story/56084.html ECT: Conservapedia] Retrieved on 2007-8-20
34. Clarke, Conor. (2007). "A fact of one's own".''The Guardian'', (March 1, 2007).
35. Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes
36. Conservapedia page on homosexulality
37. A conservative's answer to Wikipedia
38. Conservapedia Copyright
39. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jimmy_Carter&diff=113225&oldid=113214
★ GodTube
★ QubeTV
★ MyChurch
★ SourceWatch
★ Christianity
★ Objections to evolution
★ Conservapedia
'Conservapedia' is a wiki and opinion-based web encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism.[1][2] Andrew Schlafly, the site's creator and son of noted conservative Phyllis Schlafly, stated he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias. Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather? [3]
According to the site's FAQ, Conservapedia originated as a project for homeschooled children, who wrote most of the initial entries, not usually using facts, and mainly using opinions, many disproved.[4] 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.4 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.[5][6][7] Eagle Forum University is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum.
As of early September 2007, the site estimated that it contained about 16,300 articles. Additionally, the site had 13,000 registered usernames of which about 7,000 were permanently blocked (about 54%).[8]
Conservapedia Statistics
Conservapedia's earliest articles date from November 22, 2006.
| Contents |
| Conservapedia and Wikipedia |
| Reactions and criticisms |
| Licensing of content |
| References |
| See also |
| External links |
Conservapedia and Wikipedia
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), , No Original Research and attribution.[9][10][11][12]
One example of article content differences stemming from editorial philosophy conflicts is evolution. Conservapedia presents the theory of evolution as lacking support and states that creationist scientists and some secular science journals state that it is contra-evidence[13] whereas Wikipedia presents evolution as a biological process defined by observable, empirical, and measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[14][15][16]
The site seems to also support a Geocentric Theory or view of the Universe (that the Earth is the the Center of the Universe). Their section uses biblical scripture quotes to justify their support: quote ''"Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations."'', implying that both theories are equal and usable.
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."2 In contrast to Wikipedia's core 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."2
English Wikipedia's policy allowing both CE/BCE and AD/BC notation[17] has been interpreted as anti-Christian bias.[18][19] Conservapedia also interpreted the policy allowing both British English and American English spellings,[20] as anti-American bias and had a policy that only allowed for American spelling on the site. However, their policy against allowing British spellings was later revised.
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." 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.[21] Conservapedia has asserted that, "Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public."[22]
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."Conservapedia. (2007). User talk:Aschlafly, February 4 version.
Wikipedia's co-creator Jimmy Wales has stated that he has no objections to the project and that "free culture knows no bounds"[23] though he has denied Schlafly's claims of bias on Wikipedia.
Reactions and criticisms
The Conservapedia project has come under significant criticism by the general public for factual inaccuracies[24] [22]and factual relativism.[26]
Conservapedia has also been compared to CreationWiki, a wiki written from the perspective of creationism.[27]
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.[28] Another claim is that "Einstein's work had nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb."[29][30] 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. As of March 4 2007, the entry has been deleted.[31] 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.[32]
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.]" Its scope as an encyclopedia is limited: According to the founders, it "offers a historical record from a Christian and conservative perspective". [33]This is seen by many as a clear admission of bias.
The project has also been criticized for promoting a dichotomy between conservatism and liberalism and for promoting the notion that there "often are two equally valid interpretations of the facts."[34] (See also false dilemma fallacy)
On March 19, 2007, the British urban free newspaper, ''Metro'', ran the article ''Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes''. The article ridicules Conservapedia for providing only one side of controversial content.[35]
Conservapedia, and more specifically its article on homosexuality,[36] 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."
Iain Thomson, writing in ''Information World Review'', has written that "leftist subversives" may have been creating deliberate parody entries. Stephanie Simon, writing in the ''Los Angeles Times'', reported that:[37]
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". 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."[38]
Conservapedia does not allow users to copy content from Wikipedia (or use Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirror sites as a reference[39]), specifically listing the practice as a violation of its first commandment.
References
1. Conservapedia — the US religious right's answer to Wikipedia Bobbie Johnson
2.
3. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
4. A U.S. conservative wants to set Wikipedia right Andrew Chung
5.
6. American History Lecture One Conservapedia
7. Eagle Forum University
8. .
List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
9. "Conservapedia Commandments, Conservapedia (21 March 2007)
10. "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia (21 January 2007)
11. ", Wikipedia (21 March 2007)
12. ":Attribution Conservapedia:Attribution], Wikipedia on Conservapedia
13. Conservapedia. (2007).Theory of Evolution. Retrieved March 9.
14.
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.
15. "Introduction to evolution, Wikipedia (17 March 2007)
16. "Evolution, Wikipedia (19 March 2007)
17. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
18. Thomson, Iain. (2007). "Conservapedia takes on Wikipedia 'bias'". ''Information World Review'', February 28.
19. Lewis, Shelley. (2007). "Introducing "Conservapedia" — Battling Wikipedia's War on Christians, Patriots". ''Huffington Post'', February 23.
20. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) Wikipedia (9 March 2007)
21. Today programme
22. Conservapedia: The Word Says It All Rob Mackey
23. A conservative rival for Wikipedia?
24. Read, Brock. (2007). "A Wikipedia for the Right Wing" ''Chronicle of Higher Education'', March 2.
25. Conservapedia: The Word Says It All Rob Mackey
26. 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.
27. Calore, Michael. (2007). What Would Jesus Wiki?. ''Wired Magazine'', February 28.
28. Conservapedia: Data for Birds of a Political Feather?
29. Conservapedia. (2007). "Kangaroo". February 23 version.
30. Conservapedia. (2007).
"Theory of Relativity". February 22 version.
31. Conservapedia. (2007). "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus". Retrieved March 4, 2007.
32. Zimmer, Carl. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/02/21/sources_sources.php
33. [ http://ecommercetimes.com/story/56084.html ECT: Conservapedia] Retrieved on 2007-8-20
34. Clarke, Conor. (2007). "A fact of one's own".''The Guardian'', (March 1, 2007).
35. Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes
36. Conservapedia page on homosexulality
37. A conservative's answer to Wikipedia
38. Conservapedia Copyright
39. http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jimmy_Carter&diff=113225&oldid=113214
See also
★ GodTube
★ QubeTV
★ MyChurch
★ SourceWatch
★ Christianity
★ Objections to evolution
External links
★ Conservapedia
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
Featured Companies
| Golf Holidays International | |
| Green Parrot Beach Houses Resort | |
| Century 21 Beltair Associates | |
| Dancing Moon Travel |
