111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 124:
Line 124: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 16:15, October 22, 2008
, 16:15, October 22, 2008no edit summary
What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if it weren't such a left-wing slant in many of Wikipedia's articles.
But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?
That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that we should be collect information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:
1) Info that will help us promote the conservative view, and
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ambitions.
Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? I mean, are we seriously trying to compete with Wikipedia as some alternative yet "neutral" warehouse of encyclopedic info? I mean, it'd be great if I saw an article on here about how to change a tire or the chemical composition of a sponge. But of course, given the name, this would seem to be a big waste of effort, given our limited resources. Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)