5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 33:
Line 33: +
→Better article elsewhere
:::::Interesting. "The starting point for increasing your knowledge, your faith and the well-being of you and those around you is to understand concepts better. Conservapedia enables you to do that". But shouldn't a resource that tries to guide people to information actually ''do'' that? If information is out there that is factually correct and without bias (as in this criminal case), shouldn't readers/surfers/students be pointed in that direction? Isn't declining to link to that resource actually counter-productive and counter knowledge? What is the point, if not to inform? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:23, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::Interesting. "The starting point for increasing your knowledge, your faith and the well-being of you and those around you is to understand concepts better. Conservapedia enables you to do that". But shouldn't a resource that tries to guide people to information actually ''do'' that? If information is out there that is factually correct and without bias (as in this criminal case), shouldn't readers/surfers/students be pointed in that direction? Isn't declining to link to that resource actually counter-productive and counter knowledge? What is the point, if not to inform? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:23, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, it is probably best to simply delete this article and link to Wikipedia, presuming there is no "liberal bias" in the WP article, but that's against the (apparently unwritten) policies of this encyclopedia. If you want to change the policy, this is not the right place. Though I doubt you will get the administration of this website to agree that there are any pages at WP that (a) aren't biased and (b) can't be done better here. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)