188
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + +
Conservapedia talk:Quality (view source)
Revision as of 03:52, April 21, 2007
, 03:52, April 21, 2007no edit summary
: That's similar to my results on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is really just a traffic-generator and little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
: That's similar to my results on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is really just a traffic-generator and little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't think that random pages should be used to evaluate either place. To really evaluate the quality of the pages, i would propose that we take a random number of articles from some welknown encyclopedia and then make side by side comparison on how Wikipedia and Conservapedia cover those topics. As Wikipedia has been around for much longer and the goal is to measure the quality of the entries not quantity, i would be willing to discard those articles one cant find from Conservapedia. This would still ofc be an subjective view, but step for the better i think. (And yes, one can argue that to some degree quantity is allso an measure on how good an encyclopedia is) [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)