The Creation Wiki is now operating on a new and improved server.
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Conservapedia is a wiki-style online encyclopedia designed to be a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. It was founded by Andrew Schlafly on November 2006 as the class project for a World History class of 58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students meeting in New Jersey. According to their about page, Conservapedia is dedicated to providing a place where conservatives can get their voice on the internet, and for those who are "tired of the liberal bias". It should, however, be noted that Conservapedia's editorial and administrative staff are very politically and ideologically diverse.
Conservapedia has been set up for Interwiki linking. A link like
[[Conservapedia:Main Page]] will appear like this: Conservapedia:Main Page and redirect you to Conservapedia's Main Page. To Create a titled link, use a format like
[[Conservapedia:Creationism|Creationism]], which will simply appear as: Creationism.
As of October 2011, there are 37,567 content pages and 92,226 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about Conservapedia, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 4,257 pages that are probably legitimate content pages. 14,466 files have been uploaded. There have been a total of 300,249,154 page views, and 907,062 page edits since the wiki was set up. That comes to 9.84 average edits per page, and 331.01 views per edit. Beside the Main Page, Atheism (5,180,047 views), Secularized Language (2,389,961 views), Barack Hussein Obama (2,301,007 views), and Wikipedia (2,015,031 views) are the most viewed pages on the site.
Conservapedia immediately came under attack by web-evolutionists and consequently vandals. Today, vandalism is still an occasional problem at Conservapedia, though the administrators now have alleviated the problem by instituting various security measures. (For example: the uploading of images to Conservapedia, generally the right of any editor, is now a specific privilege that an editor must earn.) The administrators also patrol the site regularly and back-trace the Internetworking Protocol addresses of most offenders.
Senior Wikipedia contributors and possibly some of its steward-class users have also attacked Conservapedia. Most members of these classes claim that Conservapedia lacks any verifiable information. This is ironic, since Conservapedia actually provides links to sites which back up its claims, whereas Wikipedia mostly does not do this.
Because most of the frequently attacked articles are protected (that is, editable only by sysops and higher-ranking users), the sysops and bureaucrats have been accused of attempting to squelch the opposite view. However, many sysops have liberal views themselves. Furthermore, most opposing views find expression in "debate topics" and, within reason, in essays. (Essays are original contributions, usually of commentary but occasionally also of research.) Sadly, argumenta ad hominem, verbal abuse, and even vulgar language break out frequently in these debates--and an occasional essayist has violated the bounds of civil discourse and earned a block therefore.
Occasionally a user will say or do something patently obscene. The administrators will block such a user immediately upon the detection of the offending text. (Offensive images are rare, because image uploading is now a privilege, not a "right.")
Andrew Schlafly, the chief bureaucrat and site administrator, does not plan to make Conservapedia an invitation-only site in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the security program now in place permits the administration to allow self-registration more often and for longer periods during the day, with minimal defacement or disruption of service.
Uncyclopedia, Wikipedia's so-called parody, has also viciously attacked Conservapedia, under the guise of a "joke". However, the talk page for the article contained threats of vandalism and various hate speeches lashing out against Conservapedia's pure standards and "unscientific" articles. Uncyclopedia has even quoted several users from Conservapedia, in an attempt to make them appear foolish. However, this mockery does nothing but make Uncyclopedia even more foolish.
Note: CreationWiki Editors
CreationWiki and Conservapedia dual users should be aware of important differences that impact the mirroring of information.
Copyright and Licensure Issues
Unlike CreationWiki, the content of which is under the GNU Free Documentation License, the content at Conservapedia is protected by U.S. copyright law, and as such all submissions become the intellectual property of Conservapedia and its development and senior stewardship staff. Dual users are warned never to copy material verbatim from either site to the other that they did not actually write.
However, the simultaneous submission to both sites by author the of a work appears to be currently permissible, as per separate opinions by respective founders Chris Ashcraft and Andrew Schlafly. The current recommendation for a dual user, submitting material to both sites, is:
- Create the work here on CreationWiki.
- Reformat, as necessary, and resubmit to Conservapedia. (See Formatting Issues below.)
- Create the Talk page on Conservapedia for your submission.
- On that Talk page, include the following disclaimer:
This article is a dual submission of original work. I am the same user as (fill in your CreationWiki username here) on CreationWiki, and this article is based on [(copy the Permanent Link to the CreationWiki article here) this version] of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my own work.--~~~~
The last six characters are, of course, the standard Wiki signal to add your signature.
Topic and Scope Issues
Dual users will readily see that Conservapedia and CreationWiki do not overlap completely. Material that is on-topic and within scope at one site may be off-topic or beyond scope at the other. At present, Conservapedia has not made a definite policy of adhering to a Creationist Point-of-view similar to that at CreationWiki--and CreationWiki hosts material relevant to creation apologetics (i.e. creation science, religious studies, or other topics explained from a creationist POV or as it relates to the creation-evolution debate).
Conservapedia lacks the RDF feed and therefore lacks the Relation and Relation Talk namespaces. Therefore, links such as [[father of::Asa]] will not link on Conservapedia as they do on CreationWiki. But Conservapedia does include the Cite extension (which governs the handling of embedded references).
Topics of interest on Conservapedia
- Conservapedia (Main page)