Talk:Geographic Information Systems

I have a question. This article seems to me to be a classic example of the kind of material you really shouldn't bother having in your wiki. While a perfectly good two paragraphs, it is a mere damp squib when compared to the vast amount of excellent, up-to-date information that is Wikipedia's article on the same topic. Since the topic itself seems about as uncontroversial politically, socially, economically or morally as it can get, and I can't envisage anyone from the Left or Right disagreeing with the Wikipedia article contents, the question simply is - why do you bother? Why not just defer to the better source, or simply not bother creating such articles in the first place? Even if you wish to contain traffic and readers within your project, what added value can you bring to this topic, since it's very unlikely you have GIS experts as regular editors - and even if you did, you'd simply be duplicating information, which could well be out-of-date or less maintained?

I mean no sneering at all, I just think it's a good example of you wasting your time when you could be getting on with articles closer to your core mission? Focus, guys, focus! EngelUmpocker 17:50, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

We need a comprehensive online encyclopedia

I see what you are saying but my response would be to work towards a more comprehensive and indepth online encylopedia, not the opposite. Conservapedia is about building an encyclopedia that embraces the Biblical Worlview. I want to see all facts interpreted through Biblical 'glasses' - that includes facts relating to GIS.