Talk:Works Progress Administration
Walk with me for a moment through one editor's experience of Conservapedia. First, I check Recent Changes, and I see a new article on the Nashville Airport has been created. I know nothing about that, so I read the article - it's perfectly informative for a new, albeit brief article. It mentions that the airport was constructed as a WPA project, and I think - "I'd like to know more about the WPA, I don't know anything about that". So, I wikify Works Progress Administration in the airport article and then skip on over to here to read about the WPA.
And am met by an absolutely ridiculous article whose first few words tell me what the WPA is not (remember, I don't know anything about the subject yet), provides me with an image of some musical notes for some reason (was it a music programme?) and then launches both feet first into an incredibly opinionated rant against the WPA which rails against and mocks the WPA before I've even learnt anything about it. I finish the first paragraph knowing NOTHING of any use about the WPA other than what is clearly the opinion of someone who hates it, and that it was apparently a total "waste of effort". Which, given that I've just read that it somehow built the Nashville airport, seems confusing.
Is this really a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia"? Without knowing anything about the WPA, any reader can immediately see that this article is neither 'Trustworthy' nor 'Encyclopediac' , since it so obviously 100% opinion. It makes your resource look ridiculous - even more so when I moved here from a perfectly reasonable article that tells me that at the very least, the WPA built Nashville's airport, a fact not mentioned in this article under the Tennessee section. The inconsistency in tone and information makes for a VERY uncomfortable feeling of unreliability as I move about the wiki. I would try to help edit the article, but as I said I don't know anything about the WPA, so instead I will simply have to read the Wikipedia article on it which seems to provide a vast amount of information on the program. Aggrieved 15:42, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
- Still no response to this? I'd love to have a dialog with someone about this, as if I change things, I'm bound to be banned. But this article is ludicrous. Aggrieved 19:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
|!||Part of this article was copied from Citizendium and Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.|
Hi, I was reading through this article, and noticed that the Criticism and Favoritism section has a fair amount of criticism, but little to no favoritism. I propose either changing it to just Criticism, or adding in favorable opinions if the title wants to be kept. Thoughts? --MarkN85 15:15, 8 April 2011 (EDT)
- The consensus of modern scholarship is the WPA was modeled after the fascist movements of its day. If you wish to expand the Favoritivism section, please do so. And do not forget to name names of person's then, and now, that had positive things to say about it. 19:43, 18 July 2011 (EDT)