Changes

From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who would create this site:

From what I have seen, Conservapedia was set up in response to two features of Wikipedia which did not appeal to those who would create this site:

''* a percieved liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and

 

* the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.''

* a percieved liberal bias on Wikipedia, with Conservapedia claiming Wikipedia to be six times more liberal than the American public, and

* the feeling that the majority of articles on Wikipedia are not befitting a website designing itself as an encyclopedia. Examples that have been given are the Wikipedia articles on the word "duh", obscure music bands and arcane British royalty.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the percieved imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

In conclusion, I would argue that the assertion that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public is not correct to use, as it does not take into account the fact that both Wikipedia, and indeed Conservapedia, are used and contributed to by people across the world. I would also argue that the percieved imbalance does not actually exist in a global context. It has to be remembered that America is just one part of the world, and that American conservatives are just one part of its population.

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopedia, I would like to make the followinf argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopedia, or even a paper encyclopedia set could ever offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the traditional image of an encyclopedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, relgious, political and social information was included in concise articles.  

'''Secondly''', as regards the assertion by Conservapedia that Wikipedia features articles on items unbecoming of an encyclopedia, I would like to make the followinf argument. We live in a changing world; the world of instant communication. An online encyclopedia of any kind has obvious advantages to a paper encyclopedia: new information about certain topics can be added easily, pages are monitored to ensure the information on them is up to date, and the volume of information can be much greater than a paper encyclopedia, or even a paper encyclopedia set could ever offer. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "encyclopedia" as "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically." Wikipedia certainly covers a "wide range of subjects", and it is this that makes it so popular. While individuals on this site may complain that an article on the word "duh", the song "Honk If You Love Fred Durst" and 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University Henry Liddell are not fit to belong on an encyclopedia, I would argue that the only reason for this perception is the traditional image of an encyclopedia as being a paper reference book into which only important scientific, relgious, political and social information was included in concise articles.