Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 428:
Line 428: − − == A couple criticisms == − − 2. Wikipedia has study-guides. See wikiversity.org. The claim of anti-intellectualism is unreferenced and appears to be original research. − − 3. Where do we go to learn Conservapedia's funding sources? This claim is unreferenced and appears to be original research. − − 4. This claim is unreferenced and appears to be original research. I invite you to do your own comparison: "Homosexuality" is the name of an article here and on Wikipedia. Not only is the article on homosexuality longer here than it is there, it is much more poorly organised. The 'essential facts' are buried in a field. − − 5. Is gossip a type of information, or is it meant to mean information that is poorly sourced? If gossip is a type of information (for instance, information about the love lives of celebrities is gossip) then "real encyclopedias" include it. If it is poorly sourced information, then this is not a difference from Wikipedia. Also, this claim is unreferenced and appears to be original research. − − 6. Untrue. This crazy claim would be more defensible if, instead of "journalists," there was "journalists without additional qualifications." But still. This claim is unreferenced and appears to be original research. − − 7. Cute. This seems to be sort of true, if you grant certain definitions of obscenity and family-friendliness with which many people disagree, but is still unreferenced and still appears to be original research. − − 8. This is just a weird claim. I won't go into the philosophy behind its weirdness as I presume it wouldn't interest those here. As to the terrorist/militant claim, this is again untrue. Go look at the Wikipedia article on Al-Qaeda. The organisation is called "terrorist" repeatedly. The word "militant" doesn't appear until halfway down an exhaustive article. This weird claim and its false support are unreferenced and appear to be original research. − − 9. This claim is redundant, being basically the same as 8. I will point out that if Wikipedia editors are indeed more liberal than the American public (and really, this claim is unreferenced, but does not appear to have original research of any statistical merit backing it up) it is likely because Wikipedia is international. − − 10. Allowing original research is highly problematic and contrary to the aims of an encyclopedia hoping to include facts. Example: I just took a survey and it turns out that ninety percent of Texans (accurate +- 2% nineteen times out of twenty) think that the sky is pink at all times of day. I assume the reasons such a survey are problematic can be thought through. Also, this claim is unreferenced (and appears to be original research). − − 11. Bullying eh? I guess maybe the editors over at Wikipedia call people names, but I've never seen a threat of jail-time or fining. That seems to me to be more serious bullying. (See the "commandments.") Also, this claim is unreferenced and appears to be original research. − − 12. An aesthetic triumph for the ages. − − 13. Ha! Probably the most absurd part of this claim is the last, that Wikipedia's rules were designed with anti-intellectualism as a motive. This claim is unreferenced and appears to be original research. − − 14./15. These claims are unreferenced and appear to be original research. − − 16. How does Wikipedia "encourage" "anti-intellectual" usernames? I'm glad Conservapedia is concerned with sending the proper message. This claim is unreferenced and appears to be original research.--[[User:JohnKoziar|JohnKoziar]] 12:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 19:15, February 11, 2009
, 19:15, February 11, 2009Reverted edits by JohnKoziar (Talk) to last version by Edgar16
I must point out that in the gossip section, the word 'real' used in that context could be interpreted as meaning that Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia. Also, I believe the protection template on the beginning of this talk page is inaccurate, as I was just able to post this message.
I must point out that in the gossip section, the word 'real' used in that context could be interpreted as meaning that Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia. Also, I believe the protection template on the beginning of this talk page is inaccurate, as I was just able to post this message.