Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
1,924
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 228:
Line 228: + + + +
→Dilemma
== Dilemma ==
== 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)
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)
:As I stated in my note, 1/3 of the article was about Wikipedia. There is very little in the history section, and absolutely nothing about either the sports or the athletes themselves. If you believe that Wikipedia is paying too much attention to the Paralympics, then put that in one of the many Wikipedia bias articles CP has. Quite honestly, I don't see what it matters how WP covers the Games. Are we going to include sections about how CNN, Fox, ESPN, ABC, NBC, the NYT, the Washington Post, etc., etc. cover them?
:And as an aside, if your intent was to show that WP put ''too'' much emphasis on the Games, then you missed your point. It actually read like WP shouldn't have put ''any'' emphasis on them, and how dare they hold a contest to cover them. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:59, 30 August 2012 (EDT)