Siteadmin, 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
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: − + − + + +
Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 18:35, March 30, 2007
, 18:35, March 30, 2007improved
4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.
4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.
5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.
5. We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. Wikipedia claims to allow free use of its material, but in fact it is burdensome to comply with all of Wikipedia's copyright restrictions.
6. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts, while Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public are free to censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic [[rules]].
6. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic [[rules]].
7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.
7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.
8. We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible. Wikipedia treats users' own talk pages like community property belonging to everyone, and it becomes a place for Wikipedia editors to bully users.