4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
I read it, and found ''not even a single negative statement'' about the JW - even though they are one of the most contriversial of Christian denominations.
I read it, and found ''not even a single negative statement'' about the JW - even though they are one of the most contriversial of Christian denominations.
I dont know enough to correct this one-sided problem. For now, I have copy-pasted some of the more interesting statements over from wikipedia. Its untidy to steal from the competition, I know, but the Wikipedia licence says its acceptable. We use the same one ourselves. It will do as a temporary solution, until we can get some of our own experts to rewrite the accusations in Conservapedia-friendly terms. Its certinly preferable to bias by ommision: The JWs are a very contriversial organisation, and conservapedia needs to reflect that.
I dont know enough to correct this one-sided problem. For now, I have copy-pasted some of the more interesting statements over from wikipedia. Its untidy to steal from the competition, I know, but the Wikipedia licence says its acceptable. We use the same one ourselves.
::You are wrong, wrong, wrong about copying from Wikipedia, for two reasons.
:::First, copying from Wikipedia is not acceptable to User:Aschlafly.
:::Second, Conservapedia does ''not'' use the same license, or any other kind of "free" license.
:::Third, the Wikipedia license says its acceptable to copy their content under fairly strict conditions. You're remembering the "acceptable to copy part" but conveniently forgetting the "strict conditions" part. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying says you can copy an entire article but only if you make no changes, ''and only if the copy itself is licensed under the GFDL.'' Conservapedia isn't licensed under the GFDL, so reproducing Wikipedia material here violates the terms of their license. I won't get into the further complications if you want to ''modify'' the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
It will do as a temporary solution, until we can get some of our own experts to rewrite the accusations in Conservapedia-friendly terms. Its certinly preferable to bias by ommision: The JWs are a very contriversial organisation, and conservapedia needs to reflect that.
- BornAgainBrit
- BornAgainBrit
Just don't trash them too much. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Just don't trash them too much. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't think that Conservapedia is using GFDL. This will likely be rv so don't work on it too much. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't think that Conservapedia is using GFDL. This will likely be rv so don't work on it too much. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 14:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)