Changes

It's nice to finally have all of the fallacy, racism, sexism, and homophobia in one easily accessible place. I think my favorite thing about Conservapedia is the use of the Bible in what seems like every article (I haven't read every article so perhaps this is a gross generalization. But when it comes to, say, immigration is the Bible really the best source?) I will probably be using this website when I have to write papers on current situations. It will be a lot easier to just come here than to have to seek out the few religious right wingers I know for a quote.

It's nice to finally have all of the fallacy, racism, sexism, and homophobia in one easily accessible place. I think my favorite thing about Conservapedia is the use of the Bible in what seems like every article (I haven't read every article so perhaps this is a gross generalization. But when it comes to, say, immigration is the Bible really the best source?) I will probably be using this website when I have to write papers on current situations. It will be a lot easier to just come here than to have to seek out the few religious right wingers I know for a quote. {{unsigned|Writerfish}}

==Registration==

==Registration==

The only problem I see with Conservapedia is its deliberate mission to be more concise than its rival (and source of inspiration and design), Wikipedia.  Some topics are completely sterile and do not admit any sort of bias (gravity, for example).  Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length.  Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion.  However, Conservapedia probably actively seeks to limit the length of its articles to conform with its mission.  If the latter is true, Conservapedia has turned the clock back on the encyclopedia as reference source to the days of the hopelessly out of date set of World Books that were the staple of every suburban home in the 60s and 70s.  Good for identifying major breeds of dogs, but inadequate for much else.

The only problem I see with Conservapedia is its deliberate mission to be more concise than its rival (and source of inspiration and design), Wikipedia.  Some topics are completely sterile and do not admit any sort of bias (gravity, for example).  Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length.  Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion.  However, Conservapedia probably actively seeks to limit the length of its articles to conform with its mission.  If the latter is true, Conservapedia has turned the clock back on the encyclopedia as reference source to the days of the hopelessly out of date set of World Books that were the staple of every suburban home in the 60s and 70s.  Good for identifying major breeds of dogs, but inadequate for much else.

My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen.  They are not evil men and women.  They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale.  If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent.  Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.

My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen.  They are not evil men and women.  They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale.  If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent.  Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.  

Respectfully, Steech, December 10, 2009..............................................

Respectfully, Steech, December 10, 2009..............................................

:''"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length.  Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion."'' Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:''"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length.  Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion."'' Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)