37
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + + + + + + + +
→Welcome: Reply
Hello, and thanks for your work here at Conservapedia. I do wish to point out, though, that unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not attempt to maintain a neutral point of view (NPV) as Wikipedia claims to do. Therefore, sometimes we honestly let out bias show. The edits I saw from you on [[Obama's Religion]] looked good to me (though I haven't had the time to check them all) but your edits on [[Wikipedia]] might not be as beneficial. There any man cases (some of which we have documented) where Wikipedia has taken some very evil and/or deceitful stances. I may revert one or more of your edits to this latter page, since we seek to point out some of these problems. No one is perfect, but sometimes it seems Wikipedia is ''trying'' not to be perfect.
Hello, and thanks for your work here at Conservapedia. I do wish to point out, though, that unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not attempt to maintain a neutral point of view (NPV) as Wikipedia claims to do. Therefore, sometimes we honestly let out bias show. The edits I saw from you on [[Obama's Religion]] looked good to me (though I haven't had the time to check them all) but your edits on [[Wikipedia]] might not be as beneficial. There any man cases (some of which we have documented) where Wikipedia has taken some very evil and/or deceitful stances. I may revert one or more of your edits to this latter page, since we seek to point out some of these problems. No one is perfect, but sometimes it seems Wikipedia is ''trying'' not to be perfect.
:Please feel free and welcome to contribute here, but please also avoid inserting a liberal or "neutral" points of view in articles on politics such as these. We are not trying to be Wikipedia, but to be more accurate than Wikipedia, based on the Conservative viewpoint. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 18:29, 30 January 2017 (EST)
:Please feel free and welcome to contribute here, but please also avoid inserting a liberal or "neutral" points of view in articles on politics such as these. We are not trying to be Wikipedia, but to be more accurate than Wikipedia, based on the Conservative viewpoint. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 18:29, 30 January 2017 (EST)
Thanks [[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]]. Like the [[postmodernist]]s I appreciate that a neutral point of view is only an ideal, but surely it should be attempted. I have found the personal point of view is cultivated excessively in the articles that I have looked at here, whereas this is frequently challenged on Wikipedia. But I thought that neutral point of view is mandated in the Conservapedia's "Commandments": (5) "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry".
I have more recently commented that I find the [[Obama's Religion]] article extremely unpleasant, indeed this article would be a national scandal if one was to substitute the word Jew for Muslim. It reminds me of America's sorry record at the time of the [[Red Scare]] 1919-21.
By the way the article on the [[Red Scare]] is very far from neutral. I must check the Wikipedia version and see if it's equally extreme in its point of view; possibly it lacks sufficient comment from the extreme right?
Re [[Wikipedia]], I too have found some unpleasant editors and administrators, but some of the comments in the Conservapedia article on Wikipedia were truly laughable.
Re evil editors on Wikipedia, what I find truly evil is the attitude towards Muslims expressed on the Obama page, and I see a direct correlation between such negativity and yesterday's massacre in [[Quebec]]. I'll be interested to see what your new President has to say about this terrorist act. [[User:Rleonardw|Rleonardw]] ([[User talk:Rleonardw|talk]]) 19:13, 30 January 2017 (EST)