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.

Where it gets really funny, is when these points are compared to some of the official policy statements made on CP. Remember – the points above are supposed to be bad.

Compare for example point 3 above, and this entry from their Editing etiquette.

Do not revert an Administrator’s changes without first discussing it with them, and gaining their permission. Administrators are in charge of deciding the editorial policy of Conservapedia. Their instruction(s) on such matters are always to be followed.

Where pillar 5 is concerned, CP says “Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page.” Unless, of course you are an admin, in which case, see the point above. In fact, the only firm rule CP has for admins, is “Agree with everything Andy does and says” otherwise, as poor JessicaT found out, you get demoted. (Oh and in case you’re wondering, the “admins” she was fighting with was Terry Koeckritz).

Let’s look at the first pillar and compare that to a recent comment by said troll, Terry Koeckritz Remember “an encyclopaedia incorporating only material deemed to be “encyclopaedic”, well how’s this for a doozy: “Does anyone here actually believe a conservative, Christian encyclopedia needs to offer proof?” closely followed by “If some are worried this will make us look “bad”, I say to them: Bad to whom?  Liberals?  Do we care?  No!  Stop the madness of conforming to their expectations.”We hold certain truths to be self-evident, gentlemen.'”‘ It’s almost as if he’d read the original before coming up with that line. He’s either very, very good at trolling, or a seriously warped individual (PS If you live in Reno, be careful who you buy a used car from – it might just be Terry Koeckritz)

Pillar 2 is almost self-evident. Nobody can be as conservative as the administrators. If you aren’t, then you’re a liberal and we’ll ban you and treat you with the contempt you deserve. If you’re too conservative, then you’re probably a parodist (or troll… hello, Terry… oops, TK) and we’ll ban you.

Which leaves Pillar 4. Luckily CP doesn’t disappoint here either, as we from their page about their administrators (once again, a joke term, because the one thing they don’t do, is administer the site).  Handily bolded too, they state: Administrators and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed.” All that’s missing is the “Or else…”

So if you were ever wondering what a wiki run by rouge admins looks like, by all means swing past CP some time – just don’t stay too long – you’ll probably hurt yourself banging your head against your desk. Like I say, “We can’t make this stuff up…”

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Administrators, Andrew Schlafly, Conservapedia, Terry Koeckritz, TK, Wikipedia and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The 5 Pillars of Evil and CP

  1. Human says:

    It’s “rouge”, not “rougue”. It’s obviously an appropriated typo of “rogue” stolen from some dissatisfied WP editor.

  2. cpmonitor says:

    Thanks, fixed… sometimes I fail epically at spellign.

Comments are closed.