134
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: + + + + + +
File talk:Wikipedia scandals.jpg (view source)
Revision as of 02:14, October 11, 2007
, 02:14, October 11, 2007no edit summary
::So when we have evidence WP will begin abiding by its own policies, we may be in a position to cut it some slack & give it the benefit of the doubt. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:52, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
::So when we have evidence WP will begin abiding by its own policies, we may be in a position to cut it some slack & give it the benefit of the doubt. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:52, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
Okay, I'm starting to get confused now! All I want to do is point out two things, then I think I am done:
#According to the source page, the amount recieved on March 19th was $764. This graph shows the number going below $500. (??) The next day, (even if you take out the $100,000 that came from "cooking the books") there is still over $2,000 from that day alone. My only point is that this graph seems inacruate to me based on what I am seeing at the source page, and if the source page is compromised then all the more we should question this graph. It is also too small a window to show any kind of meaningful trend in donation reciepts.
#About all this verifing of information... as an encyclopedia, if we want people to take us seriously, we should cite reliable sources. Even on Wikipedia, they require this, and if a page does not cite sources, it will eventually be tagged. They also have this policy that says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball Wikipedia is not a crystal ball], meaning it is not a collection of "unverifiable specualtion". If this policy is any different at Conservapedia, then Conservapedia has lost the moral high ground and doesn't have much room to criticize Wikipedia.
And just to clarify, I'm not defending Wikipedia. I just think Conservapedia should be cautious about what it puts out here.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:14, 10 October 2007 (EDT)