. /../Conservapedia and why it sucks/ 12
written by Geekspeek on Jun 26, 2007 19:17
I just joined Conservapedia a few days ago, and within minutes of my registering, I was permanently banned by one of the sysops. I didn't even have an opportunity to make any edits, or say anything, or do anything at all for that matter. The reason given was "likely vandal". Granted, that's exactly what I was and why I joined (the site is run by asshats and desperately needs to be vandalized), but what if I'd been a legitimate member? There was nothing in my profile to indicate that I might vandalize the site. I wonder how many legitimately moronic people (instead of people like me pretending to be morons) have been permanently banned because they are "likely vandals"?
whatever.
written by Bgreman on Jun 26, 2007 19:31
Geekspeek said:
Granted, that's exactly what I was and why I joined (the site is run by asshats and desperately needs to be vandalized), but what if I'd been a legitimate member?
People like you make me hate everything. Why would you be so mean-spirited as to join a community merely to attempt to harm it. I might think people are asshats or idiots, but I never try to undermine their right to proceed in their idiocy unmolested.

Please retitle this thread "Conservapedia and why Geekspeek sucks".
written by Neogamer_101 on Jun 26, 2007 19:34
Interesting...I signed up and haven't been banned...yet. I read in the rules that if you don't participate that you will be banned. On a side note, is this suppose to be a rip off of Wikipedia? What makes this so much more "accurate" than wikipedia?
doing pushups
written by Megagun on Jun 26, 2007 19:36
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
Wikipedia said:
Conservapedia is a wiki-based encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a pro-American socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism.
lieutenant busybody
written by Fth on Jun 26, 2007 19:44
Meaning it's basically a less-free Wikipedia. There's a lot of those around, what makes this one so special? That it caters towards a crowd most of us probably can't stand? Good idea to bring attention to it then!... riiiight....
meep
written by Naavis on Jun 26, 2007 20:12
Megagun said:
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia
Wikipedia said:
Conservapedia is a wiki-based encyclopedia project with the stated purpose of creating an encyclopedia written from a pro-American socially and economically conservative viewpoint supportive of Conservative Christianity and Young Earth creationism.
It almost sounds like a satire.
there's science to be done!
written by Yash on Jun 26, 2007 20:40
Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah.
It's so tastey. "Commandments."
written by Geekspeek on Jun 26, 2007 21:43
Bgreman said:
Geekspeek said:
Granted, that's exactly what I was and why I joined (the site is run by asshats and desperately needs to be vandalized), but what if I'd been a legitimate member?
People like you make me hate everything. Why would you be so mean-spirited as to join a community merely to attempt to harm it. I might think people are asshats or idiots, but I never try to undermine their right to proceed in their idiocy unmolested.

Please retitle this thread "Conservapedia and why Geekspeek sucks".
You obviously have no experience with the site in question. Read some of the articles, especially the ones on "Deceit", "Liberal", and "Clinton", to name just a few, and you will WANT to vandalize that pile of trash.
who needs titles?
written by Pomelos on Jun 26, 2007 21:51
Geekspeek said:
You obviously have no experience with the site in question. Read some of the articles, especially the ones on "Deceit", "Liberal", and "Clinton", to name just a few, and you will WANT to vandalize that pile of trash.
Why would you want to vandalize a site, just because you don't agree with it?
written by Geekspeek on Jun 26, 2007 22:33
1. Because the site is guilty of the very things it accuses Wikipedia of
2. Because of the holier-than-thou attitude of the site staff
3. Because of their intolerance for opposing viewpoints OF ANY KIND, to the point that you will be perma-banned and all your edits reverted if you try to make one of their encyclopedia "articles" show both sides of the story
4. Because of their less-than-subtle sexism
5. Because of the glaring factual innacuracies that plague the site
6. Because of the fact that they try to present the stuff on that site as fact, even when it is obvious how incorrect it is
7. Because several of my friends have been banned, despite the fact that they had no malicious intentions and made contributions which would have been considered quality additions to the site's content anywhere else
8. because they do everything they can to discredit Wikipedia, when Wikipedia and its staff have never done anything to them
There's more, but I think you get the gist of it.
"gheeh!" (c)h.azuma
written by Yayo on Jun 26, 2007 22:34
erm.. probably what my friends are trying to say is that vandalism is never good.
If you disagree with the contents of a site which exists just to store content like that, just don't use that site, and go searching for something else. : P

y.
written by Geekspeek on Jun 26, 2007 22:37
Yayo said:
erm.. probably what my friends are trying to say is that vandalism is never good.
If you disagree with the contents of a site which exists just to store content like that, just don't use that site, and go searching for something else. : P

y.
You have a point, and that's probably the better course of action, but that site really pisses me off (it's one of the few things I've found on the Internet that does, actually).
"gheeh!" (c)h.azuma
written by Yayo on Jun 26, 2007 23:01
meh.. : |
there are a lot of bad things on the net, sadly. : /
I don't know that site, so I can't say.
But if you really want to do something to change things, you'll probably get a better result trying with constructive actions rather than distructive ones.

If you can, get a discussion with those persons and explain your points.
If they're not that kind of persons to accept discussion you're just wasting your time. Trying to force things is not a good thing (and, by the way, you'll probably get nothing done if you have not privileges to keep your voice up).

you cannot expect they deny their ideas, even if those ideas are wrong. One of the better things of internet is that it's (still?) a free place, where everyone is free to do anything, also to commit mistakes or to show their idiocy. (It happens all the time. : P)

You could try to build an anti-conservapedia or to open a site where you explain why you disagree with them, or something else.
That would be probably much better. You would just provide your points of view as well as they're doing with their ones.
And then let readers decide for themselves.

: )

y.
written by Geekspeek on Jun 26, 2007 23:15
Sounds like a plan. Although, I think the easier path would be to just join the existing anti-Conservapedia. RationalWiki FTW!
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jun 27, 2007 00:49
Wow, this Conservapedia thing is bunk. Compare Wikipedia's Conservapedia article to Conservapedia's Wikipedia article. Already in the second paragraph, this piece of garbage links Wikipedia to pornography rings, not to mention the article's inadequate design and criticism after criticism section; EVERY single section in Conservapedia's article on Wikipedia relates to controversies, hoaxes, denials, false claims and scandals. Also (though they don't need it), they even have a "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" article: http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia . Oh, and look at this:

Conservapedia said:
According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood.
Bloody hell?

Wikipedia? It has it's criticisms section, but it doesn't take up the whole page; considerably less than it.

I put the writers and programmers of this idiotic piece of rubbish under the "religious fanatic" category along with Islamic extremists.
reading this thread
no members are reading this thread
. /../Conservapedia and why it sucks/ 12
39575, 12 queries, 0.088 s.this frame is part of the AnyNowhere network