Wikipedia in the news, part 2: Conservapedia

So, Conservapedia. “We think Wikipedia is biased against our viewpoint, so we’re going to start our own.”

Deliberately politicized wikis are not new — hello, dKosopedia — and wikiforks are not new either — hi, Wikinfo. Conservapedia explicitly lists its beefs with WP, though, and intends to supplant Wikipedia as the definitive information source. Naturally, our oh-so-liberal media is falling all over itself to pick up the story. (Oddly enough, the best commentary so far has been in the comments section of the Onion AV Club’s entry.)

Tuesday night I spoke to a BBC morning program about Conservapedia. (You can listen if you’re interested, though I’m not sure how long the link will last.) I knew that there’d be somebody from CP on as well, and that we’d be debating to an extent, but I didn’t quite realize that I’d be arguing with Andy Schlafly, the Conservapedia Jimbo and the (heterosexual) son of Phyllis Schlafly.

I think the discussion went pretty well, all in all. The presenter did a fantastic job of moderating and allowing us each to speak our respective pieces. I am pleased with how I was able to take notes and formulate responses while holding my face roughly three inches from the left side of der scrubbook (I did the interview via Skype). Schlafly committed big mistakes IMNSHO when he went on about how Wikipedia was “mob rule” (um. you’re pushing a wiki?) and when he went on about how CP would only accept US English spellings… on BBC radio.

For what it’s worth, I really do think that multiple wikis can be a good thing — diversity of opinion does strengthen us all — and Conservapedia has quite a few articles for such a young project (it was only started in November). It’s also having a few technical issues thanks to its recent press coverage, and I can remember the Slashdot-effect days on WP, so I’ll cut it some slack there.

That said…

• Wikis rely on collaboration and consensus. Editors must work together toward the common goal (an encyclopedia, user documentation, whatever). When one particular user clings insistently to their version of events, then they are not sticking to the spirit of the wiki. Wikipedia culture calls these people “POV warriors” and strongly disapproves of them. Conservapedia is created by such people for such people. Hmm.
• Reliance on biblical exegesis as a source will get you into trouble. Remember, there have been massive wars over theological disputes; what’s to keep Conservapedia from falling into that trap?
• Whenever an article makes its way onto the Main Page at the English Wikipedia, it is invariably besieged by vandals. Most vandalism is caught within seconds, though, because of the sheer size of the en.wp community. Conservapedia does not have that luxury, and it is getting overwhelmed with traffic from blogs and more traditional news sources.
• Wikipedia isn’t going out of its way to exclude or piss off most of the planet.
• Though Wikipedia is not perfect and may not ever get there, its NPOV policy allows serious editors to focus on the article itself instead of ideological arguments. Conservapedia is nothing but ideology.

… so I can’t see much coming of Conservapedia. Sorry.

P.S. Almost forgot to point out the response on CP to the BBC story: permalink to appropriate version of http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:BBC Note how Schlafly completely misses the point of Tooner440′s comment.
P.P.S. Um, I never expected to be listed in the Wikipedia article on Conservapedia. I honestly don’t see what listing my name adds to the article, but I’ll let somebody else decide whether or not to keep it.