5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + +
Talk:Falsifiability of Creation (view source)
Revision as of 10:49, April 13, 2008
, 10:49, April 13, 2008→I DEMAND THIS ARTICLE BE MADE
:Second, please see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] before you tell us that Wikipedia is "the most reliable source of unbiased, open information."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 06:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:Second, please see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] before you tell us that Wikipedia is "the most reliable source of unbiased, open information."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 06:44, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
::Already read it, and most of those problems are just vandalism that were never reported enough to be changed, you know, a better idea would be to simply go ''add in'' the articles of people or things you find need to be put there, and while I am a liberal, I will say that though Wikipedia may be considered Liberal, that is because the policy is freedom of content, as in, if there is proof of something, it should be documented, period. They are not Liberal, it's just that liberalism has similar view to what Wikipedia does. their goal is to supply a source of verifiable, uncensored information to anyone who inquires, and that is what they do very well. Conservapedia seems to just censor what they don't like and tout anything even harmlessly bad about the topics they don't like, and 'forget' to mention the good of said topics