Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 104: Line 104:  
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])?  If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person.  (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well)  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
* I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures ([[Economics Lectures]], [[World History Lectures]])?  If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Original_reporting original reporting] policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person.  (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well)  --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 
:: it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
==Name Change==
 +
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Navigation menu