Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Conservapedia:Quality (view source)

Revision as of 17:45, April 19, 2007

516 bytes added ,  17:45, April 19, 2007
replying to random page survey
Line 5: Line 5:  
:2 useless: 5
 
:2 useless: 5
 
:2 sabotage: 6, 9
 
:2 sabotage: 6, 9
 +
 +
:: This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered.  How does this compare to Wikipedia?  What type of sabotage was it?  5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience.
 +
 +
:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia:  judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article.  That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
    
==[[Biblical criticism]]==
 
==[[Biblical criticism]]==
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,231

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/116893"

Navigation menu