Changes

:::I'm not trying to be rude... but why is it that when Wikipedia locks an article, it's liberal bias.  But one of our own admins he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=433467&oldid=433465 consdered locking it] because he assumed there would be vandalsim, which is fine.  Also, Jinxmchue mocks the blocking of anon. users, but doesn't acknowledge that this site doesn't even allow anon. edits (not that I don't understand why) and for some time, it was common practice to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandals. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|^{The Doctor is In}]] 23:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not trying to be rude... but why is it that when Wikipedia locks an article, it's liberal bias.  But one of our own admins he [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=433467&oldid=433465 consdered locking it] because he assumed there would be vandalsim, which is fine.  Also, Jinxmchue mocks the blocking of anon. users, but doesn't acknowledge that this site doesn't even allow anon. edits (not that I don't understand why) and for some time, it was common practice to block entire ranges of IP addresses to prevent vandals. [[User:DrCB|Doctor CB]][[User_Talk:DrCB|^{The Doctor is In}]] 23:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Wikipedia tends to lock articles which liberals on the site have deemed to "own." If you look at the edit history of the WP article, it is obvious which group controls it (and with such concrete reasoning such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=208627352&oldid=208624149 "So what?"] for removing relevant material that doesn't trash the movie. And WP prides itself on being open to edits by anyone and everyone, anonymous or not.  CP makes no such claim. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Wikipedia tends to lock articles which liberals on the site have deemed to "own." If you look at the edit history of the WP article, it is obvious which group controls it (and with such concrete reasoning such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=208627352&oldid=208624149 "So what?"] for removing relevant material that doesn't trash the movie). And WP prides itself on being open to edits by anyone and everyone, anonymous or not.  CP makes no such claim. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:29, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Normally, I'm not one to give much credence to the "bias in Wikipedia" charge, but I have to admit, in this case, it is appropriate.  A lot of a quotations are inappropriate for the sections they're in, and it's obvious that parts of it are meant to steer the reader towards a certain opinion.  The article is coming down on one side of the issue, and a good encyclopedia shouldn't do that.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:35, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:Normally, I'm not one to give much credence to the "bias in Wikipedia" charge, but I have to admit, in this case, it is appropriate.  A lot of a quotations are inappropriate for the sections they're in, and it's obvious that parts of it are meant to steer the reader towards a certain opinion.  The article is coming down on one side of the issue, and a good encyclopedia shouldn't do that.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 09:35, 24 April 2008 (EDT)