SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,592
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 226:
Line 226: + +
dilemma
I moved those newspaper articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
I moved those newspaper articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:55, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
:Thanks! [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:03, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
:Thanks! [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:03, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
== Dilemma ==
I generally feel that Conservapedia and Wikipedia should have about the same standards for coverage and inclusion. That is, all other things being equal, things that are worth covering are worth covering by both encyclopedias. Now, political outlook and the particular interests and backgrounds of individual editors can create blind spots, so some differences in coverage are inevitable. I saw the new Conservapedia article on the Paralympics and welcomed it. But I then asked myself the question, should Conservapedia's coverage be as broad as Wikipedia's. The answer is "no" because Wikipedia's coverage standards have been biased by paid editing. So, I included my findings regarding the source of the bias. Although the Paralympics are notable and worth covering, I think that they are over-covered by Wikipedia for the reasons I described. I don't want to distort my coverage just because they are getting paid, yet I see a need to explain the difference. I hope you understand my dilemma. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:43, 30 August 2012 (EDT)