Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎AGAINST: non-encyclopedic
Line 20: Line 20:     
:Oh, be reasonable.  It doesn't force ideals on anyone.  No one is required to be here. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:47, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
 
:Oh, be reasonable.  It doesn't force ideals on anyone.  No one is required to be here. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:47, 14 July 2007 (EDT)
 +
::Agreed, but there's obviously some sort of agenda here which favours loaded language and non-encyclopedic coverage (most notably, denigratory comments and value judgements in the entry for [[liberal]]). Ultimately this makes for a less objective, reliable source. Sorry guys. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:06, 11 November 2007 (EST)
    
No.  An 'Encyclopedia' is generally considered to be authoritative, i.e. contains opinions considered 'generally true', which would mean that more than one person would maintain that opinion.  Sysops lock articles having written them to suit their own purposes.  References are utterly abused, contain editorial instead of simply being links to the reference quoted, and are manipulated to misquote reference.  For example, see the article on [[Adultery]], where two references which suggest that adultery is gender-neutral are listed in an editorialsed refernce link which refers to adultery as being caused solely by the woman.
 
No.  An 'Encyclopedia' is generally considered to be authoritative, i.e. contains opinions considered 'generally true', which would mean that more than one person would maintain that opinion.  Sysops lock articles having written them to suit their own purposes.  References are utterly abused, contain editorial instead of simply being links to the reference quoted, and are manipulated to misquote reference.  For example, see the article on [[Adultery]], where two references which suggest that adultery is gender-neutral are listed in an editorialsed refernce link which refers to adultery as being caused solely by the woman.
216

edits

Navigation menu