. /../Conservapedia and why it sucks/ 12
written by Cryoburner on Jun 27, 2007 04:34
Geekspeek said:
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"?
From viewing their list of blocked usernames, I see only three users that have been banned for that specific reason in the last month, and all of which have names indicating that they probably weren't intending on making serious contributions to the site. These names are IRstoopid, Porcamadonnaaaa, and MichaelJackson. According to their rules page, they might report vandals to the authorities, or at least your ISP, so you should probably be happy they banned you before you could cause any actual trouble. : )

Geekspeek said:
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
Your friends visited a conservative website for the sole purpose of making nonconservative contributions. That sounds like vandalism, or at the very least trolling. Why bother wasting your time causing trouble for others who have done nothing to you? It's not as though people are going to visit the site in search of an unbiased viewpoint anyway. It's more a catalog of conservative views than anything, so the content should be taken as such.
~vacation~
written by Tacogeddon on Jun 27, 2007 09:35
Vandalizing a website is like vandalizing a building in real-life, you're just some irked guy trying to make a point the only way you know how...by causing outward visual trouble. But like vandalism in real-life, it can just be cleaned up...you are just lucky it isn't like the real world, where you would be arrested for such actions.
who needs titles?
written by Pomelos on Jun 27, 2007 11:19
Geekspeek said:
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.
So?

I mean, I don't go shooting people in the street just because they're fanatical creationist loonies. Neither do I vandalize their websites.

That's rude.
wah... waall-eee
written by Magnulus on Jun 27, 2007 11:25
Shooting people in the street is rude? Well, I can't disagree with that, but I'd say it's a tad more than rude.
who needs titles?
written by Pomelos on Jun 27, 2007 13:34
Magnulus said:
Shooting people in the street is rude? Well, I can't disagree with that, but I'd say it's a tad more than rude.
I was competing for the 2007 Hirohito World Understatement Championship.

One point to the first one understanding the Hirohito reference
krush kill 'n destroy
written by Geekofdeath on Jun 27, 2007 20:03
Hmm.... now that I think about it, this Conservapedia reminds me of http://www.chick.com/default.asp.

Eww.....

I can't stand people like that. They think they know everything. Whenever they get in trouble, they ask God for help, but it's even said that God helps those who help themselves, I mean, hello? Are you there? Reality to Chick. Chick not responding.
meep
written by Naavis on Jun 27, 2007 20:34
Well, you, too, seem like a person who thinks he knows everything.
never here
written by Ozoch on Jul 02, 2007 02:31
Welcome to the internet. Loonies, asshats, and holier-than-thou people are everywhere. Live with it please without becoming one yourself.
written by Bellum on Jul 02, 2007 03:05
Tacogeddon said:
Vandalizing a website is like vandalizing a building in real-life, you're just some irked guy trying to make a point the only way you know how...by causing outward visual trouble. But like vandalism in real-life, it can just be cleaned up...you are just lucky it isn't like the real world, where you would be arrested for such actions.
I think you should be expected to respect other peoples property online just as much as in real life.
written by Zixinus on Jul 02, 2007 20:15
Geekofdeath said:
I put the writers and programmers of this idiotic piece of rubbish under the "religious fanatic" category along with Islamic extremists.
Even if they are just doing their job, for which they are paid for? You do realise that you don't always have the choice of working for whoever you like, especially if you are not the best and brightest in the profession.


Wikipedia has flaws, both in community and idea (wikitruth).
But Conservapedia is worse, and it doesn't even attempt to be factual, beyond political propaganda which they attempt to present as factual.

However, I don't see a reason why vandalise them. They are entitled to their delusions, and you don't have a chance to correct them or bring them back to reality if you want to discuss this on their own turf. They can edit and delete your posts at will, and they will do so.
reading this thread
no members are reading this thread
. /../Conservapedia and why it sucks/ 12
32460, 14 queries, 0.080 s.this frame is part of the AnyNowhere network