Changes

OK, another suggestion, in support of being reasonable.  I would have no debate with you or your project WHATSOEVER, if you would simply change the main page and stop claiming you are an Encyclopedia.  Why not call yourself 'Conservapedia - a Young Earth Creationist Database', or something similar?    [[User:50something|50something]]

OK, another suggestion, in support of being reasonable.  I would have no debate with you or your project WHATSOEVER, if you would simply change the main page and stop claiming you are an Encyclopedia.  Why not call yourself 'Conservapedia - a Young Earth Creationist Database', or something similar?    [[User:50something|50something]]

///It should be noted that not even Wikipedia is viable as a scholarly source. I.E. it should never cited in any kind of research. With that said I think a good rule is to not even CONSIDER using conservapedia as any kind of factual outlet. Also I wouldn't trust anyone who bites the hand that feeds them. I.E. smearing wikipedia while using mediawiki as the website base. That's just hypocritical.///

///It should be noted that not even Wikipedia is viable as a scholarly source. I.E. it should never cited in any kind of research. With that said I think a good rule is to not even CONSIDER using conservapedia as any kind of factual outlet. Also I wouldn't trust anyone who bites the hand that feeds them. I.E. smearing wikipedia while using mediawiki as the website base. That's just hypocritical.  

 

 

No, that's really interesting... Editors don't have to justify their statements. That's good, I mean it's only the process by which actual factual encyclopedia's are rigorously put through. Why should you do it here?///