Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/Conservapedia Article

< Wikidata:Property proposal

Conservapedia Article edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

   Not done
DescriptionArticle in the conservapedia webservice.
RepresentsConservapedia (Q17963)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainWikidata item (Q16222597)
Example 1Universe (Q1) → [1]
Example 2Earth (Q2) → [2]
Example 3Poland (Q36) → [3]
Example 4Rapeweed (Q97375257) → [4]
Sourcehttps://conservapedia.com
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Number of IDs in source50000+ (growing)
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://conservapedia.com/$1
See alsoParler username (archived) (P8904)
Distinct-values constraintyes

Motivation edit

While Conservapedia (Q17963) might not be the best source of information. Adding it allows the reader to read about the souce from diffrent perspectives helping tgem to estabilish a more objective opinion. There are also properties for other web encyclopedias and adding another one would not cause such a problem. Karmazyn16 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  •   Oppose Conservapedia is a horrible source of information. According to the 2nd example above, "Both the Bible and the available scientific evidence indicate the earth is about 6,000 years old (see also: Age of the Earth)." According to this article, "public schools in the United States are government-sponsored institutions intended to indoctrinate children up through 12th grade." These are two of countless examples of misinformation you can find on this website; just click some of the links on the homepage. This is not a site we should be leading people to. --IagoQnsi (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support I have the same opinion as IagoQnsi, but I think censoring these sites from Wikidata is not be the best way to fight disinformation. If a site has sufficient relevance, it can have it's own property. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 23:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Poor quality encyclopedia--Trade (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose This wiki is rubbish: everyone knows that the Earth is as flat as a plate. —Eihel (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose. Andy Schlafly's error-riddled travesty of an encyclopedia ought to die alone in the dark. The hateful screed serving as an entry for Michelle Obama uses "she" in quotes and has a photo doctored to make her look masculine. gobonobo + c 16:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Strong oppose - There's difference between a different viewpoint and information that is simply wrong. Linking to Conservapedia from our project legitimizes their disinformation.--The Navigators (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Strong oppose. Conservapedia was created because a fundamentalist Christian considers factual information not reflected in the Bible heretical. In addition to holding the Bible as the ultimate authority on science when it's nothing of the sort, it's racist, homophobic, once attributed President Bush Jr.'s failure to adequately respond to Hurricane Katrina to "a Democratic/Islamo-Fascist conspiracy", uncritically parrots conspiracy theories like the Democratic Party relying on illegal votes and President Obama being born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, and is so infested with trolls that you can't tell what Schlafy actually believes and what's a parody of fundamentalist Christian loopiness. It's nothing more than a fundamentalist Christian Encyclopædia Dramatica. ThroningErmine8 (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support Some entries could improve our coverage of conservatism in the United States (Q2585032). --Gerwoman (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support the site's content quality is garbage, but the site is notable and somewhat well-known. I'm sure we'd have a property for "rationalwiki entry" too, at least I'd support one. Elliot321 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Not done By 6 oppositions against 4 (including the applicant), the community considers that this proposal cannot succeed. Moreover, Uncyclopedia (Q17460) or Stupidedia (Q50778) don't have identifiers property. —Eihel (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Conservapedia_Article&oldid=1354496222"