sotnd conservaleaks

2008-05-20 ZB1 Selective Restore
2008-05-21 ZB1 31,000 globe-warming rejecting scientists!
2008-05-21 ZB1 Unencyclopedic?
2008-05-21 ZB1 Philip debating Andy on Gun control
2008-05-21 ZB1 TomMoore's block

Unencyclopedic?, Tue, 20 May 2008 22:03:35 -0700 (PDT):

The above is from DLearner, and like a few before him has decided what
is "encyclopedic" and what is not.  If these clowns think they can
decide what is encylopedic for inclusion into Conservapedia, then by
that same logic they are dictating what contents should be included or
excluded...which would put themselves in charge.

That shouldn't be tolerated.

DeanS <>, Tue, 20 May 2008 23:33:40 -0700 (PDT):

So, go ahead and revert him. ;-)

"Brian Macdonald" <>, Wed, 21 May 2008 02:16:45 -0500:

I left a nasty gram on his talk page...I thought that sufficed!

DeanS <>, Wed, 21 May 2008 00:41:56 -0700 (PDT):

Not really.

That's right, you do not have such a degree, and therefore you do not
decide what is or is not "encyclopedic" on this site. [[User:Karajou|
Karajou]] 01:05, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Right, that's Ed Poor's job... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 01:07,
21 May 2008 (EDT)

He still wins... last wordmanship + his edit is still there. ;-)

"Brian Macdonald" <>, Wed, 21 May 2008 02:44:17 -0500:

I'll give him the last word, but he does know where I stand on the matter.

"Brian Macdonald" <>, Wed, 21 May 2008 02:46:39 -0500:

Besides...Ed's got to weigh in on this, because DLearner (aka vandals
JoeFrench, JohnFrench, etc) accused Ed of deciding what is or is not

The gist of what I got from his and past users "definitions" as to that term
means that if it's not found in a traditional print encyclopedia, it
shouldn't be here.

"Philip Rayment" <>, Wed, 21 May 2008 19:01:20 +1000:

As you've made your point publicly, I've responded publicly on his talk page.  I totally disagree with you.

Philip Rayment

"Brian Macdonald" <>, Wed, 21 May 2008 12:45:50 -0500:

Well, guess what?  I totally disagree with you, and I included that
disagreement on the talk page in question.

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Philip Rayment <>

Ed Poor <>, Wed, 21 May 2008 11:52:41 -0700 (PDT):

I have a fairly good idea of what is encyclopedic. I have extensive
experience in this matter, on two major online encyclopedia projects.
One is Wikipedia, which I helped turn into the world's top ten
website. Another is the New World Encyclopedia, where I influenced
hiring decisions of top management personnel (4 out of the 5 people I
recommended are still there). I got the managing editor his job. I
trained the area editors, then taught the managing editor's wife how
to do this training in my place. I influenced the hiring of the
physical science editor, the philosophy editor, and the social science

If deciding what is or is not encyclopedic is a crime, then I plead
guilty as charged.

Ed Poor

"Philip Rayment" <>, Thu, 22 May 2008 23:46:59 +1000:

So you did!

But you didn't actually answer the point.

Philip Rayment

Ed Poor <>, Thu, 22 May 2008 10:36:07 -0700 (PDT):

Let's discuss the issue here. What is "encyclopedic", and how much of
it do we want?

Are we trying to compete with Wikipedia, in terms of scope? (I don't
think we have enough writers for that; maybe we should specialize.)

Are we trying to counter the liberal bias of Wikipedia? (If so, we
could concentrate more on this aspect.)

Are we trying to get a conservative president elected this autumn,
i.e., McCain rather than Clinton or Obama? (In that case, let's make a
comparison of where the parties stand on various issues.)

Ed Poor

"Brian Macdonald" <>, Fri, 23 May 2008 01:04:11 -0500:

What is "encyclopedic" as far as Conservapedia goes is exactly what is
allowed on the site: family-friendly, Judeo/Christian-friendly articles that
are concice, accurate, detailed, and free of the liberal hogwash that
infests Wikipedia.  With that in mind, then the sky's the limit as to what
can be put there.

Just keep in mind that everyone who has used the tern "un-encyclopedic" to
deride some entry or article has been a liberal; I have not seen it yet
where a conservative has made the same statement.

"Philip Rayment" <>, Fri, 23 May 2008 21:59:35 +1000:

No, the sky's not the limit.  Andy has said that we don't want articles about trivial or unimportant things (although what counts as that is very subjective, and likely some of our articles about video games, bands, and football teams fall into that category).

As for only liberals using the term, I'm sure that I've used it, and I expect other sysops have used it also.  There's nothing "liberal" about the term at all.

And isn't "concise" the opposite of "detailed"?  Or perhaps that's why we've got "concise" articles such as Homosexuality that comes in at 170 kilobytes (or 27 pages), and in fact have 177 articles that are over the MediaWiki-recommended 30 kilobytes.

Good grief:  The first article over that limit, at 31,072 bytes, is "Ceiling fan"!  Did you know that "downrods come in many lengths"?

Philip Rayment

Ed Poor <>, Fri, 23 May 2008 07:54:19 -0700 (PDT):

Philip, I think you are right about what Andy wants.

In fact, I have worked to reduce the number of trivial articles.
Recently, I got one of our newcomers to merge the UK football teams
(that's "soccer teams" for us Yanks). Let's work some more to merge
video games into an article ABOUT the video game phenomenon (and have
less detail about individual games other than showing how they do or
don't coincide with Judeo-Christian values). [[Grand Theft Auto]] is
about the only article I'd like to see as a stand-alone, but it could
be merged into [[Violence and crime in video games]].

[[Homosexuality]] and [[Evolution]] aren't concise. They are
comprehensive. It might help to divide them up a bit, into more easily
read chunks. Like "Homosexuality is bad, because it destroys your
ability to lead a God-centered life. It's forbidden by the Bible.
Etc." We can use Summary Style (as wikipedia calls it) to reduce the
size of the main article, putting copious detail into related
articles. (That's what [[Template:Main]] is for.)

We can also reduce the size of [[Evolution]] from its present
cumbersome and ponderous bulk. But I have consistently refrained from
digging into these tasks, because User:Conservative is the lead author
on these two. He's a better writer than me, and I know NOTHING about
search engine optimization. I don't want to "fix what is not broken".
But I'm hoping we can make a plan to improve these two flagship

Ed Poor

"Brian Macdonald" <>, Fri, 23 May 2008 12:24:10 -0500:

Then just about every stub article written would be considered trivial.
Conservapedia is supposed to be an educational resource...the key word is
"educational".  So I'm asking all of you: do you want Conservapedia to be
BETTER at it than Wikipedia?  Do you want Conservapedia to be so good it
makes Britannica look like a cheap novel?

If not, then let all the trolls and libs have their way at it.  I'm sure
it'll look as good as Ratwiki inside of two weeks.

Temlakos <>, Fri, 23 May 2008 13:57:14 -0400:

Well, /I/ certainly want Conservapedia to be a better, more educational
encyclopedia than is Wikipedia.

We can decide how many articles we really want to have on motion-picture
and television shows (and novels), and whether individual video game
titles "rate" as works of "art" at the same level as the above. Beyond
that, I don't see limiting our scope necessarily to law and politics.
Why do you think I strive so hard to make a mark in astronomy, for example?


"Brian Macdonald" <>, Fri, 23 May 2008 13:03:54 -0500:

"Philip Rayment" <>, Sat, 24 May 2008 23:45:39 +1000:

We call it "soccer" too.  "Football" is Aussie rules, or perhaps rugby,
depending on which state you live in.

In principle, I think it's a good idea to combine various trivial topics
into one topic, although it does get back to the question of how trivial is
trivial?  That is, where do you draw the line?

But as for working to reduce the number of trivial articles, who was it that
wrote "two meters" and other such gems?

I don't recall Conservative ever saying anything about the size of the
article helping search-engine optimisation, and in fact I gather that
multiple articles all linking to each other (rather than one big article)
would actually improve the rankings.  So I'd like to see more of us cutting
the bigger articles up into smaller ones.

Although I like Wikipedia (am I allowed to say that here?) for the sheer
amount of information, I do get frustrated at having to wade through big
articles to find what I'm looking for.  More summary articles linking off to
other articles makes sense to me.  I recently wrote Biblical anthropology,
and will (when I get around to it) put a (single-paragraph?) summary of it
in the Young Earth Creationism article.  I'd also like to reduce the
Astronomy section in the YEC article (much of it is on the Starlight
Problem, for which there is already a separate article), and move the list
of young-earth evidences back to a separate article, leaving just a summary
of that in the YEC article.

Philip Rayment

"Brian Macdonald" <>, Sun, 25 May 2008 01:29:08 -0500:

I like information presented in a good, sound, well-written manner, which
the average reader could just come in and get right to the point, and size
is just not a problem if the reader is able to absorb the provided info

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 8:45 AM, Philip Rayment <>

2008-05-20 ZB1 Selective Restore
2008-05-21 ZB1 31,000 globe-warming rejecting scientists!
2008-05-21 ZB1 Unencyclopedic?
2008-05-21 ZB1 Philip debating Andy on Gun control
2008-05-21 ZB1 TomMoore's block

Last updated 12 Apr 2011 by Georg Kraml.