Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
396 bytes added ,  17:37, July 1, 2009
reply, what sets Conservapedia apart and in many ways above
Line 69: Line 69:     
::::: No one wants their energy to be wasted and work deleted, and there is no sense in duplicating effort. Mathematical terminology and structure is pretty much standard, but the nature of a good mathematics article, whether in Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Wolfram or Scholarpedia, would be characterized by a clarity of exposition and correctness. What is needed, in my opinion, is a different slant from those in other sources. Why would you want to duplicate an article about, say, symbolic dynamics if there is a perfectly good one in Scholarpedia? To make it clear to a different target group. Scholarpedia is aimed at professional scientists, students of science and highly motivated non-scientists, Wikipedia is (supposedly) aimed at ordinary folk -- so, aside from a conservative POV (which doesn't apply to science, as far as I am concerned), what should differentiate mathematics articles here? I don't think there is any harm in adopting a "mission statement" of sorts, and spending a little time making sure the goals are crystal clear.[[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)
 
::::: No one wants their energy to be wasted and work deleted, and there is no sense in duplicating effort. Mathematical terminology and structure is pretty much standard, but the nature of a good mathematics article, whether in Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Wolfram or Scholarpedia, would be characterized by a clarity of exposition and correctness. What is needed, in my opinion, is a different slant from those in other sources. Why would you want to duplicate an article about, say, symbolic dynamics if there is a perfectly good one in Scholarpedia? To make it clear to a different target group. Scholarpedia is aimed at professional scientists, students of science and highly motivated non-scientists, Wikipedia is (supposedly) aimed at ordinary folk -- so, aside from a conservative POV (which doesn't apply to science, as far as I am concerned), what should differentiate mathematics articles here? I don't think there is any harm in adopting a "mission statement" of sorts, and spending a little time making sure the goals are crystal clear.[[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)
 +
 +
:::::: What sets Conservapedia apart, and in many ways above, the sources you cite is that Conservapedia is an ''educational'' resource free of [[liberal bias]].  That applies to the math entries just like any other.
 +
 +
:::::: A wiki is not for standing around talking.  It's for substantive edits, and the sooner one starts, the better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
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
126,514

edits

Navigation menu