Changes

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, [[User:Steech|Steech]] 16:55, 11 December 2009 (EST), 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)