Debate:Was the media attention needed?
|!||THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
I discovered Conservapedia from the media but it has also seems to have attracted unwanted attention. Do you think we really needed all that coverage? --Eiyuu Kou 23:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
It was needed to spread the gospel of Conservapedia
I'm sorry... the what? Myk 23:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
- I think it just made YEC viewpoints get mocked further. Look at the articles, who could blame them. --AmesG 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
- The word that Gospel is from in the greek can mean "good news" as well, so it's not necessarily a bible thing :-). "It was needed to spread the good news of Conservapedia" --Ymmotrojam 23:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I am uncomfortable with the word Gospel. The word today is viewed in a religious context. Gay means happy, but would people find it offensive to call the site Gay Conservapedia? Of course.
The attention was needed
There is rarely such a thing as bad publicity. Now people know about it. But in order for Convervipedia to succeed it must have more articles on history or no one will use it.
It should have only been mentioned, not covered
The coverage was useful in getting the name out, but they were quite clearly laughing at you. Sorry, us. --Falcifer 21:53, 16 January 2008
No, but if it was not for it, I would not be here
Sulgran 23:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservapedia shouldn't have had any media coverage for the sake of protecting pages
why do you have to " protect" anything, just provide facts, not spin and you should be okay.--Dugless mcspud59 16:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)