15
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + +
no edit summary
Please look at a real encyclopedia, or the style of other entries here: they are factual, without opinions and emotionally charged terms. They have citations. Everything you enter should have at least one citation. Many here share your opinions, but this is a resource for obtaining the *facts*. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:26, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Please look at a real encyclopedia, or the style of other entries here: they are factual, without opinions and emotionally charged terms. They have citations. Everything you enter should have at least one citation. Many here share your opinions, but this is a resource for obtaining the *facts*. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:26, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Mr Schlafly, I suggest you look at the body of other articles- a vast majority of them are shorter than a paragraph, with very few citations, and, the ones which are cited all seem to reference either a single textbook or, criminally, other Conservapedia articles. I'm sure you're aware that this is not exactly a high standard of academic verifiability. I came to this site from Wikipedia with the impression that this is a site for things we all *know* to be true, and that, as such, don't require evidence or citation. For instance, even the lowest of atheists can usually see that murder is wrong, despite the fact it is impossible to scientifically prove or empirically validate this obvious truism. I'm not saying we shouldn't provide citations where truth and evidence overlap, but for now, with limited time and editors, we should focus on improving the truth value of this resource, rather than demanding rigorous citation and criticising each other, in my humble opinion. Thanks [[User:FingoMcGlingo|FingoMcGlingo]] 17:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)