Changes

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this might be what Aschlafly wants. I don't think it's got much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by trying to become a serious, factual encyclopedia whose policies and governance are tweaked just enough to give it a somewhat different emphasis from Wikipedia. My model for this is the Christian Science Monitor in the days when it was a serious, first-rate daily newspaper. It was respected by everyone as serious journalism, was widely read by people who were not Christian Scientists, and was aligned with the Christian Science church without pushing in-your-face, over-the-top Christian Science spin in every article one every page. I think this might be what Aschlafly wants. I don't think it's got much chance of getting there. It took Wikipedia about three years to become credible, and I think it pretty much dominates the ecological niche for volunteer-created encyclopedias.

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would never to there for actual information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.  

:*One way Conservapedia ''could'' succeed is by become a repository for articles that do not even pretend to be serious information resources, but self-celebratory exercises in anti-liberal rhetoric. Not the George WIll of encyclopedias, but the Ann Coulter of encyclopedias. Conservatives would come to it, not for information, but to experience the reassurance of being in among their own mob. It can probably exist indefinitely as a web forum billing itself an encyclopedia, but which nobody takes seriously as an encyclopedia. And there is of course endless fascination to be had trying to figure out of the edits presenting the most extreme points of view are mocking pranks, and which are sincere.  

:*Conservapedia now trumpets on its main page that it is the number one conservative website by Alexa traffic ranking. However, to me at least, the [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.conservapedia.com reach, traffic, and page view] charts at this particular moment look like an impressive double peak and a precipitous decline. The bloggers and Internet journalists have been intrigued by Conservapedia's premise, then entertained by the ludicrous gap between promise and delivery. What happens now? As Conservapedia's overall quality improves (from hadal to merely abysmal), it becomes ''less'' interesting until it reaches the point where it is so good that it is worth reporting as a usable information resource. Can Conservapedia bridge that gap? It took Wikipedia several years to become credible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Conservapedia now trumpets on its main page that it is the number one conservative website by Alexa traffic ranking. However, to me at least, the [http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.conservapedia.com reach, traffic, and page view] charts at this particular moment look like an impressive double peak and a precipitous decline. The bloggers and Internet journalists have been intrigued by Conservapedia's premise, then entertained by the ludicrous gap between promise and delivery. What happens now? As Conservapedia's overall quality improves (from hadal to merely abysmal), it becomes ''less'' interesting until it reaches the point where it is so good that it is worth reporting as a usable information resource. Can Conservapedia bridge that gap? It took Wikipedia several years to become credible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:36, 13 March 2007 (EDT)