5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 392:
Line 392: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 10:23, March 20, 2008
, 10:23, March 20, 2008no edit summary
::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly, Rutm's comment was what I planned to say - have you any good argument besides "it's obvious" that Wikipedia contains and, more ridiculously, encourages gossip? I don't plan on continually pushing against an ''ad hoc'' "it's obvious" argument, or vague references to long articles which might contain only a small percentage of "gossip" left over because the article is not policed strongly enough. Further, Wikimedia routinely publishes third-party audits publicly [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/2/28/Wikimedia_2006_fs.pdf], which doesn't quite seem in line with the dark for-profit agenda you allege they follow. I'm not counting on you responding, and less on acting (fixing the mistakes quoted), but you might do well if you can recognize that smears without context, references, and/or proof merely damage your credibility. How is this "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if it cannot write about ideas, for example, Wikipedia's use of the GDFL, without misdirection? I'd like to see this fixed. [[User:INTregued|INTregued]] 23:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
== Comments ==
6. Instead you allow the opinions of editor stated as they are facts. Especially if that editor is and admin, or somebody important for Conservapedia. Example: "The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned '''by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.'''" - [[Wikipedia]]
<br>I'm not saying it's not true, it might be, as well as it might also be for Conservapedia, but where is he research that demonstrates that?
8. Unless it's bad for herself.
9. So allowing research from casual editors that might be teenagers?
12. Like this one:
{{expand}}
14. That might be a good thing, but also they should be verified to see if they really are experts.
15. Those that were banned, were banned for planning on vandalizing Wikipedia, not because they stated their opinion.
'''If you have strong arguments against this, don't delete it, but instead state those arguments.'''