Changes

=== '''Why does Conservapedia have articles on non-political topics?''' ===

=== '''Why does Conservapedia have articles on non-political topics?''' ===

Obviously, liberal bias can creep into Wikipedia's articles on subjects in religion, politics, philosophy, history, culture, and law.  It can also appear in articles in science (evolution, for example), or medicine (the effects of abortion).   

Obviously, liberal bias can creep into Wikipedia's articles on subjects in religion, politics, philosophy, history, culture, and law.  It can also appear in articles in science ([[evolution]], for example), or medicine (the effects of abortion).   

But there are additional problems with Wikipedia which Conservapedia addresses.  For example, many articles on Wikipedia are excessively long, providing extraneous detail that can muddle a subject.  Conservapedia offers concise, informative articles.  Readers who wish to explore a subject more in-depth are free to enroll in Conservapedias courses for home schooled students, but we do not have a whole courseworth of material on every subject.

But there are additional problems with Wikipedia which Conservapedia addresses.  For example, many articles on Wikipedia are excessively long, providing extraneous detail that can muddle a subject.  Conservapedia offers concise, informative articles.  Readers who wish to explore a subject more in-depth are free to enroll in Conservapedias courses for home schooled students, but we do not have a whole courseworth of material on every subject.

Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.''

Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.''

If you google '''calciumcarbonat''', what's the first article to appear? Of course, wikipedia's.  Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO₃.

If you google '''calciumcarbonat''', what's the first article to appear? Of course, Wikipedia's.  Therefore, countless of students looking for certain chemical compounds got instant information by Wikipedia - most of the articles are as helpful as the one on CaCO₃.

In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by wikipedia....

In fact, nowadays it's hard to imagine any student of chemistry who didn't use the help provided by Wikipedia....

[[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 18:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)

[[User:FrankC|ComedyFan]] 18:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)

I guess our differences come down to whether having more information is a good thing. Personally, I find the math articles on Conservapedia to generally be incredibly lacking. If all you want is a definition of a term then sure, a one sentence article is acceptable, but if you actually want to learn, it is near worthless. Imagine if the article on George Washington only said "George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was in office from 1789-1797". Sure it tells you who he was, but it doesn't tell you why he was significant. It doesn't show you how he fits in with history as a whole.

I guess our differences come down to whether having more information is a good thing. Personally, I find the math articles on Conservapedia to generally be incredibly lacking. If all you want is a definition of a term then sure, a one sentence article is acceptable, but if you actually want to learn, it is near worthless. Imagine if the article on George Washington only said "George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was in office from 1789-1797". Sure it tells you who he was, but it doesn't tell you why he was significant. It doesn't show you how he fits in with history as a whole.

The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better then a dictionary.  

The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better than a dictionary.  

The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certianly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understnad only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it?

The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certainly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understand only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it?

For that matter, there are many articles I understand and benefit from which I never would have understood a couple years ago. Should we really censor the articles just for the sake of my middle school self?

For that matter, there are many articles I understand and benefit from which I never would have understood a couple years ago. Should we really censor the articles just for the sake of my middle school self?

Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the defintion of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula.  

Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the definition of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula.  

It doesn't even try to generalize or connect it to other topics.

It doesn't even try to generalize or connect it to other topics.

::::::::::::'''"Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits."'''  Actually, that seems pretty impressive to me, given that Conservapedia doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result is considerably smaller than Wikipedia or similar sites.  Having 900 people thanking Conservapedia for helping them is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:33, 14 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::::'''"Funny, I googled "thank you Conservapedia" and received less than 900 hits."'''  Actually, that seems pretty impressive to me, given that Conservapedia doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a result is considerably smaller than Wikipedia or similar sites.  Having 900 people thanking Conservapedia for helping them is certainly nothing to be ashamed of.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:33, 14 December 2009 (EST)

 

 

  Just a note to anyone still following: I got blocked for a couple of days for my dissent in this board. The reason given was "liberal name calling," though I have yet to determine what name I called and where I did so. It seems that the majority on this website have no problem ridiculing those who differ in opinion (see evolution syndrome), but they certainly can't take it when it's returned in kind. I had really hoped to contribute to the discussion on Orwell, but couldn't because of my removal...I really hope the irony of that isn't lost on anyone. Either way, I'd rather be blocked for dissent than embraced for compliance. But thank you Jacob, you are always so helpful at proving the points I am trying to make. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Just a note to anyone still following: I got blocked for a couple of days for my dissent in this board. The reason given was "liberal name calling," though I have yet to determine what name I called and where I did so. It seems that the majority on this website have no problem ridiculing those who differ in opinion (see evolution syndrome), but they certainly can't take it when it's returned in kind. I had really hoped to contribute to the discussion on Orwell, but couldn't because of my removal...I really hope the irony of that isn't lost on anyone. Either way, I'd rather be blocked for dissent than embraced for compliance. But thank you Jacob, you are always so helpful at proving the points I am trying to make. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:35, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:Oh, and way back (at the beginning of my block), Andy accused me of "talking big." I would just like to point out that HE is the one claiming to represent all Wikipedia users, saying that nobody has benefited from it in a meaningful way. I am merely trying to represent my own voice. And yet I am the one accused of talking big? Ridiculous. Also, I have nothing to personally gain from the defense of Wikipedia (I have invested no time or money into its creation), whereas Andy has a vested interest in slandering the competition, making his opinion biased from the beginning, and thus meaningless in this discussion. Andy keeps demanding "specifics, specifics!" But you know what? I don't need to prove myself to you. If the "liberal" statistics were good enough for my professor, then I couldn't really care less if you disagree. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:43, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:Oh, and way back (at the beginning of my block), Andy accused me of "talking big." I would just like to point out that HE is the one claiming to represent all Wikipedia users, saying that nobody has benefited from it in a meaningful way. I am merely trying to represent my own voice. And yet I am the one accused of talking big? Ridiculous. Also, I have nothing to personally gain from the defense of Wikipedia (I have invested no time or money into its creation), whereas Andy has a vested interest in slandering the competition, making his opinion biased from the beginning, and thus meaningless in this discussion. Andy keeps demanding "specifics, specifics!" But you know what? I don't need to prove myself to you. If the "liberal" statistics were good enough for my professor, then I couldn't really care less if you disagree. [[User:Insufficient|Insufficient]] 15:43, 13 December 2009 (EST)

This is absolutely ridiculous. You repeatedly insist that noone has ever been helped by Wikipedia, despite the fact that people have testified on this very page multiple times on how Wikipedia has helped them. What do you think? That we're some sort of conspiracy to promote Wikipedia? Are you really so committed to your belief that Wikipedia is useless that you also believe that anyone who says otherwise must automatically have an ulterior motive? Debate is so easy when you simply dismiss everything that anyone else says.

This is absolutely ridiculous. You repeatedly insist that noone has ever been helped by Wikipedia, despite the fact that people have testified on this very page multiple times on how Wikipedia has helped them. What do you think? That we're some sort of conspiracy to promote Wikipedia? Are you really so committed to your belief that Wikipedia is useless that you also believe that anyone who says otherwise must automatically have an ulterior motive? Debate is so easy when you simply dismiss everything that anyone else says.

It's funny how you seem to know whether I have learned something or not better then I do myself. Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.

It's funny how you seem to know whether I have learned something or not better than I do myself. Generally, a theory of mind is developed by the age of three.

I also like how you responded to my arguments by pointing out a typo. I suppose that means that you don't actually disagree with my characterization of the dispute. The problem is that what you call "concise", I call "lacking in information".[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)

I also like how you responded to my arguments by pointing out a typo. I suppose that means that you don't actually disagree with my characterization of the dispute. The problem is that what you call "concise", I call "lacking in information".[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 18:07, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:"Insufficient", you have over two dozen ranting edits on this page, and not a single enlightening edit on any substantive page in this entire encyclopedia.  You're illustrating what Wikipedia is like.  It's a place where liberals pretend to know more than they do, and shout down anyone who's actually trying to post a conservative insight for others to genuinely learn.  I'm confident that a study of Wikipedia would yield the same results as the study of Facebook did.  I bet both are correlated to lower grades, not higher ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:"Insufficient", you have over two dozen ranting edits on this page, and not a single enlightening edit on any substantive page in this entire encyclopedia.  You're illustrating what Wikipedia is like.  It's a place where liberals pretend to know more than they do, and shout down anyone who's actually trying to post a conservative insight for others to genuinely learn.  I'm confident that a study of Wikipedia would yield the same results as the study of Facebook did.  I bet both are correlated to lower grades, not higher ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I wonder why I'm here too. From past experience, I know that such arguments are completely pointless and never accomplish anything. As the saying goes, debating on the internet is like running in the special olypmics: even if you win you're still retarded. I guess the main reason is because arguing is fun. It produces feelings of superiority in both participants.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah, I wonder why I'm here too. From past experience, I know that such arguments are completely pointless and never accomplish anything. As the saying goes, debating on the internet is like running in the special olympics: even if you win you're still retarded. I guess the main reason is because arguing is fun. It produces feelings of superiority in both participants.[[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 23:19, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:Ah, so you're just here to argue then.  Time to experience my own feeling of superiority. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:Ah, so you're just here to argue then.  Time to experience my own feeling of superiority. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Turning from something you are taught in school to learn what others have to say is open-minded.  Accepting without question what liberal schools teach somebody as a child is close minded.  What part of this obvious truth do you deny? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:24, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Turning from something you are taught in school to learn what others have to say is open-minded.  Accepting without question what liberal schools teach somebody as a child is close minded.  What part of this obvious truth do you deny? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:24, 14 December 2009 (EST)

All of it!  You don't have to turn from something you were taught in school to question.  You can question it and decide that it was correct after all.  The openness is in the ability to to decide to the way of where you think the evidence leads you.  Openness is not in the making of the wrong or right decision based on that evidence.  Secondly is that you can turn from something you were taught in school and be completely close minded about it!  My mom could tell me that i'm a bad boy to believe in evolution and I therefore turn away from it.  That's closed.  Asking if that may be true or not is open.  Finally, even if i'm wrong about that ONE question, that isn't a defense of that pitiable quiz. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:29, 14 December 2009 (EST)

All of it!  You don't have to turn from something you were taught in school to question.  You can question it and decide that it was correct after all.  The openness is in the ability to decide to the way of where you think the evidence leads you.  Openness is not in the making of the wrong or right decision based on that evidence.  Secondly is that you can turn from something you were taught in school and be completely close minded about it!  My mom could tell me that i'm a bad boy to believe in evolution and I therefore turn away from it.  That's closed.  Asking if that may be true or not is open.  Finally, even if i'm wrong about that ONE question, that isn't a defense of that pitiable quiz. [[User:Mhildred|Mhildred]] 00:29, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Leave until you can learn to discuss these issues respectfully. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Leave until you can learn to discuss these issues respectfully. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:30, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Dave, you have free will.  The Bible is like a good diet.  One can choose to ''never'' eat foods that are good for you, but the outcome is not pretty or desirable.  Put another way, you're not helping anyone by refusing to read the Bible, least of all yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::Dave, you have free will.  The Bible is like a good diet.  One can choose to ''never'' eat foods that are good for you, but the outcome is not pretty or desirable.  Put another way, you're not helping anyone by refusing to read the Bible, least of all yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 14 December 2009 (EST)

I've got to say, this is literally my favorite website in the world! This like the only bible-thumping online-community/denial generator that actually backs up what they say with the truth, and not the liberal "truth", that's shoved down our throats from birth, but true, conservative half-truths. The only truth you need.

I've got to say, this is literally my favorite website in the world! This like the only bible-thumping online-community/denial generator that actually backs up what they say with the truth, and not the liberal "truth", that's shoved down our throats from birth, but true, conservative half-truths. The only truth you need.

"Do you believe evolution ''must'' have happened?" What an awful question. So what you're saying is that those who believe creationism must have happened aren't equally closedminded? What's funny about that quiz is that the people who wrote are the ones who are actually closedminded.

"Do you believe evolution ''must'' have happened?" What an awful question. So what you're saying is that those who believe creationism must have happened aren't equally closedminded? What's funny about that quiz is that the people who wrote are the ones who are actually closedminded.

== The most logical book ever written ==

--[[User:Linkmeup2003|Linkmeup2003]] 00:53, 16 December 2009 (EST)== The most logical book ever written ==

My candidate would something like Euclid's ''Elements'' - but certainly not the Bible as

My candidate would something like Euclid's ''Elements'' - but certainly not the Bible as

:::::: Well put, Andy. From my experience it seems like many people only read brief passages from the Bible and don't fully understand them, which is why they may think it's "illogical." But a careful study of the full meaning of the scriptures leads one to realize that it is indeed the most logical book ever written. To all those trying to argue against the Bible here - I urge you to spend a bit more time meticulously studying its contents, and perhaps you will be enlightened. God bless, --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 21:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: Well put, Andy. From my experience it seems like many people only read brief passages from the Bible and don't fully understand them, which is why they may think it's "illogical." But a careful study of the full meaning of the scriptures leads one to realize that it is indeed the most logical book ever written. To all those trying to argue against the Bible here - I urge you to spend a bit more time meticulously studying its contents, and perhaps you will be enlightened. God bless, --[[User:FatherJoseph|FatherJoseph]] 21:43, 14 December 2009 (EST)