Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 21:37, March 21, 2007

314 bytes added ,  21:37, March 21, 2007
replies
Line 1: Line 1:  
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc.  So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc.  So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
: Good point. Thanks.  I corrected it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
    
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_Talk#Quality_of_References talk page]. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities.  They aren't.  In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,204

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/55270"

Navigation menu