The 5 Pillars of Evil and CP

Woot! 2 for 1 day today as we look at a funny comparison between Wikipedia and Conservapedia.

On Wikipedia (which CP will have you believe is a nest of commies, gays, baby-eaters, etc, etc), their Cabal put together a handy list, which they call the "Five Pillars of Evil", which describe the behaviour of a rougue administrator. To save you clicking on the link, here they are:

• 
  

  Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia incorporating only material deemed to be "encyclopaedic". This term need not have a consistent definition, but is always in alignment with whatever an administrator thinks.

  
  

• 
  

  Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, and, since administrators are community-appointed stewards, whose point of view could possibly be more neutral?

  
  

• 
  

  Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the purview of Wikipedia administrators and must be distributed or linked according to their wishes. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone, but only admins control articles.

  
  

• 
  

  Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect the authority of administrators even when you may not agree with them. Be civil (note: ordinary users only). Avoid edit wars with admins, as they are always right; remember that there are 2,886,274 other articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss, so why don't you go somewhere else if you've got a problem? Act in good faith (Note: administrators can still assume bad faith on your part), and assume good faith on the part of administrators.

  
  

• 
  

  Wikipedia does not have firm rules for administrators.

  
  

Andy Schlafly – Educator “Extraordinaire”

It has been mentioned in the past that our Andy plies his trade as a teacher of home-schooled children (in between acting as legal council for a bunch of quacks). Whilst I have nothing against home-schooling per se, I have a great deal against his method of home-schooling.

Not content with putting together shabby, half-complete – and often incorrect – lectures, with facts twisted to suit his own bizarre world-view (anybody claiming that Columbus was not the first to reach America is, of course, a liberal liar. Tell that to Lief Ericson.), he also imposes that world-view on his unwitting students. During his last lecture series on American History (or rather Andy Schlafly’s View of American History), he set different final exams for his male and female students, because he seriously believes that girls are different intellectually to boys (and should bake more cookies). The ultimate irony was that he window-dressed this sexism as “chivalry”.

But more on that little saga in another post.

Land of the Free?

Editing at Conservapedia is a veritable minefield. Nevermind the restricted editing hours (08h00-00h00 EST, or whenever they feel like opening it), any administrator who might just happen to disagree with something you've posted will block you. This is usually for a period between 5 years and infinity (just to make sure you don't come back from the dead - or after the rapture in their case - and try and insert facts again). It's not just administrators either - it includes those mere peons upon whom Andy has bestowed blocking rights - these being far more important than editing or uploading rights.

There's no review board, no hearing and no appeal. Just boom- you're outta here.  The administrators do have a wonderful sense of irony, however. They sometimes tell banned users they can e-mail Andy to appeal... except Andy's e-mail is disabled and the blockee has their on-wiki e-mail rights revoked. Gosh, I bet that gets some chuckles down at the Arlen Specter effigy burning night.

Dramatis Personae

I suppose it's best to start at the beginning and list some of the main characters at Conservapedia, the alleged Wikipedia for conservatives (that even Conservatives don't know about - ConservativeUSA's so-called "Right Links" makes no mention of them, although Mother Phyllis' Eagle Forum is there), you'll be coming across very often in the posts that will follow. Fortunately, there aren't too many - between defections to a rival wiki and the administrators' habit of blocking everything that breathes, the average day's "recent changes" page constitutes several administrators and a horde of vandals - i.e. people trying to insert facts into the gibberish there. It's probably best to focus on the administrators for now, which is a misnomer, because the one thing they don't do is administration.