In consistency with its goal of presenting the evidence-free, epistemically-closed Americonservative/far-right authoritarian view of reality, Conservapedia's administrators keep a tight rein over what is allowed to be discussed or presented, lest their target audience discover that some who disagree with them might actually have valid points to make.
- RationalWiki: this is particularly interesting, since RationalWiki has an article criticizing Conservapedia's article on atheism. The filter has apparently been customized to block any mention of RationalWiki, even if it's not in a link, and sysops will revert any edit even mentioning RW – even if the mention is within a question asking "why did you revert my post?" (The hypocrisy and mirroring are compounded by the fact that Conservapedians and their ilk often claim that atheists generally like to censor religious points of view, a claim for which there is no evidence.)
- rational:Conservapedia:Censoring Lenski's RW ref has another example of this pathological dislike of RationalWiki
Suppression of "Troublemakers"
The third comment below (by TylerB) was reverted by Aschlafly without any response, even though Bugler seemed to have a valid point (and is a new contributor with only one other edit, hence no established record of making trouble):
- Hat tip, Bugler & RodWeathers. It is long past time that time wasters and arguers-with-an-end be once again put on notice they are not welcome here. Those who truly want to contribute, we don't care if they agree 100% with us, just so long as they contribute to what they can agree on! It is just a pity that most liberals are incapable of acting without deceit. --₮K/Talk 16:33, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- It's very unfortunate that so much time has to be spent dealing with trolls, vandals, and endless-arguers, especially for those of us who have little time to contribute to begin with. One wonders if they have absolutely nothing better to do with their time. It'd be one thing if they presented reasoned points of view, but instead it's constant slurs, vandalism, and otherwise disruption. - Rod Weathers 16:36, 23 November 2008 (EST)
- Ok, what about this discussion where CPAdmin1 is called an "idiot" by Bugler twice, and further insulted him without even a specific warning? This same user attacks Philip and HelpJazz constantly, but nobody does anything about it. Call me "liberal" and "deceitful" all you'd like, the proof of hypocrisy and abuse is right there and undeniable. TylerB 16:43, 23 November 2008 (EST)
The dialogue referred to by Bugler is reproduced here (as it will probably be deleted eventually from Conservapedia).
(Note that Bugler eventually came out as a troll. rational:Conservapedia:Bugler)
- 2008-06-27 [Talk|Index] It Just Keeps Getting Better - Conservapedia Censors Its Own Users Over Lenski Letter § “It began with Andrew Schlafly demanding that Doctor Richard Lenski turn over any data on his 20-year experiment. Lenski politely noted that the necessary evidence was already available, but this did not satisfy Schlafly, who made further demands. Lenski then replied with a carefully detailed response which essentially shredded many of the contentions Schlafly had been making in exchanges elsewhere on Conservapedia regarding Lenski's research, and which highlighted Schlafly's total lack of a plan for what to do with the data that he was demanding. .. Now, RationalWiki posts the scoop on some of the underhanded tactics that Schlafly, et al, have gotten up to in posting the exchange on Conservapedia.”