2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 311:
Line 311: + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 18:09, June 28, 2007
, 18:09, June 28, 2007#4?
: Done. Thanks much, Catherine!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
: Done. Thanks much, Catherine!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
== #4? ==
"4. We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts."
If this is, in fact, the case, then why is there an '<nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>' keyword not only available, but used by editors here? Does this not implicitly encourage long-winded, verbose entries? To avoid slipping into hypocrisy, I would advise that Conservapedia either stops making such an allegation against Wikipedia or cease all used of this practice be it called <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> or "cleverly" disguised as <nowiki>{{expand}}</nowiki>.