" 

 == A Wikipedian's experience == 

 I joined Conservapedia about 3 weeks ago and was ""unanimously elected"" sysop after 6 days there. Other Wikipedians I've seen helping the project include dpbsmith and interiot.  

 The project's policies are evolving but are not hostile to liberal content - merely to the expression of liberal canards as fact. With the exception of four dozen protected pages, all articles are open to editing by non-sysops. 

 Compared to Wikipedia, the project is especially sympathetic to the religious side of the creation-evolution debate. However, saboteurs have entered parody content - apparently with generating 'evidence' of how 'silly' the site is. It's difficult to detect these without becoming ""McCarthyist"". I suspected ""Richard"" from the start, but I'm a rather tolerant and easygoing fellow and therefore did not voice my suspicions.  

 After becoming a sysop, I clamped down hard on incivility - a perennial problem in any on-line project. About half of those I've warned and/or temp-blocked left or got banned. The rest seemed to have decided to buckle down and produce some serious work. It's the same as Wikipedia: if you tolerate nonsense, you get nonsense.  

 A major difference with Wikipedia not brought out in the present article is its editorial insistence on getting facts right. There is no NPOV at Conservapedia, so an effort to get at the truth is appreciated. (Like Wikipedia, when the truth is not known - at least not agreed upon by contributing editors - both sides of the story are given.) Unlike Wikipedia, when a POV opposite to the Conservative viewpoint is presented, it is permitted to remain in the article - if properly labeled. The classic formula X said Y about Z is (becoming) the norm there.  

 Less than 48 articles are currently protected. The 'flagship' article Theory of evolution is anti-Materialistic, would would not be permitted at Wikipedia. It highly favors Creationism, too. Several contributors have been clamoring for this article unprotection, but as they have no organized plan and have not submitted useful content nearly all their work has been reverted. I seem to be an exception to this!  I guess my 5 years at Wikipedia, learning how to work collaboratively to craft a sort of 'consensus' on an article, are paying off. 

 Conservapedia is not the enemy, even though A. Schlafly has fired a few shots across Wikipedia's bow (so to speak). It's a haven for the rejected ideas which NPOV (as interpreted and applied here) chosen to censor.   

 *I see no reason why my experience is any less relevant than any of the other user stories on this page. Please don't delete it again.  "