Changes

:: Funny you should cite [[Moscow]], just two days ago I added an entry about Moscow, Idaho.  And my point is that we can make this a good place.  Give it time, both your precious time and a few more months of linear time.  [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Funny you should cite [[Moscow]], just two days ago I added an entry about Moscow, Idaho.  And my point is that we can make this a good place.  Give it time, both your precious time and a few more months of linear time.  [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 11:05, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any amount of time will bring conservapedia to any sort of "general encyclopedia" status. There is simply too much information out there for the selected group of people that subscribe to conservapedia to catalog efficiently. The reason wikipedia is so thorough is because they have a larger population of people contributing. Conservapedia's viewpoints (and very severe and in some cases biased mods) generally turn off many people that could contribute a wealth of information. [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 12:18, 18 May

I don't think any amount of time will bring conservapedia to any sort of "general encyclopedia" status. There is simply too much information out there for the selected group of people that subscribe to conservapedia to catalog efficiently. The reason Wikipedia is so thorough is because they have a larger population of people contributing. Conservapedia's viewpoints (and very severe and in some cases biased mods) generally turn off many people that could contribute a wealth of information. [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 12:18, 18 May

:It's a question of quality against quantity. Yes, Conservapedia has fewer articles, but that's because the site is more strict about who gets to edit content, and more through in vetting data. There are some fields like art criticism that's dominated by liberals. It makes sens that, at this young state in Conservapedia's development, these topics would be lightly sparse. As the site grows and more Conservatives enter traditionally liberal fields, the expertise needed to grow Conservapedia will likewise grow. --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 10:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:It's a question of quality against quantity. Yes, Conservapedia has fewer articles, but that's because the site is more strict about who gets to edit content, and more through in vetting data. There are some fields like art criticism that's dominated by liberals. It makes sens that, at this young state in Conservapedia's development, these topics would be lightly sparse. As the site grows and more Conservatives enter traditionally liberal fields, the expertise needed to grow Conservapedia will likewise grow. --[[User:AlexC|AlexC]] 10:55, 12 January 2009 (EST)