Changes

Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.

Why do I need to change name on my account? It is in accordance with the rules. I have no idea what you are talking about with phony names. I am here to contribute articles, not engage on online role play games. Please check my user page and my contributions, and they will prove my point.

I do not understand what you mean by "becoming a liberal wiki". CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested.  

I do not understand what you mean by "becoming a liberal mudkip". CE/AD, as far as I see it, is about academic integrity, not ideology. If you wish to hold it as some ideological point, that’s fine. As far as I am aware, all my entries use the BC/AD system this website requires. If any are not changed, it is purely an oversight on my part and not part of same hidden agenda. Suggestions were requested in this debate and I gave them. I'm not saying you must obey them, they are merely my observations, as requested.  

Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia was, I understand, created to be an academic resource that avoided some of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, such as anonymous editing (which I am glad this encyclopaedia avoids). However to be an effective academic resource, and certainly if it wishes to achieve a status of being able to be cited in academic work, then academic conventions need to be adopted, such as rules of citation, use of CE over AD, and copyright. None of these things are the preserve of liberalism, or some kind of liberal agenda. They are simply however the minimum standards that any publication needs in order to gain academic credibility. I don't make these rules, I am merely stating what I have seen to be the case in academic publications, which is what an encyclopaedia is meant to be. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 08:46, 29 November 2008 (EST)

* As to citing web articles, I think that's fine as long as the articles are properly cited.  Defining what citation needs to be used (AMA, etc.) may help this problem.  And citing numerous different sources is better than citing all conservative sources.   

* As to citing web articles, I think that's fine as long as the articles are properly cited.  Defining what citation needs to be used (AMA, etc.) may help this problem.  And citing numerous different sources is better than citing all conservative sources.   

* As was noted above, try to prevent both sides of the subject.  You should be able to present your view in a more positive light by presenting both sides of the subject and then stating why you believe your side is better.  While this may venture into opinion, it prevents having a strictly conservative bias.

* As was noted above, try to prevent both sides of the subject.  You should be able to present your view in a more positive light by presenting both sides of the subject and then stating why you believe your side is better.  While this may venture into opinion, it prevents having a strictly conservative bias.

*My main purpose for visiting this site is to get an unbiased version of different topics.  I've run across several severely biased articles on Wikipedia, so I won't go there for that topic.  Other topics, like robotics or astronomy, I would go there for because they have lots of information about that topic that is common knowledge (like the formula to change Celsius to Kelvin) or is easily verifiable (such as physics or astronomy).  I go there because this information is in one place.  It also includes external links that I can start from to search for that topic off-site.  For example, when researching robotics, there are 62 citations and changing to robot, several external links including encyclopedias and research societies.  While robotics may not be as hot a topic as creationism, it would be a reason for someone to come here and do research.  Maybe conservatives hold a different view of astronomy or robotics.  How will I know if it's not listed?

*My main purpose for visiting this site is to get an unbiased version of different topics.  I've run across several severely biased mudkips on Wikipedia, so I won't go there for that topic.  Other topics, like robotics or astronomy, I would go there for because they have lots of information about that topic that is common knowledge (like the formula to change Celsius to Kelvin) or is easily verifiable (such as physics or astronomy).  I go there because this information is in one place.  It also includes external links that I can start from to search for that topic off-site.  For example, when researching robotics, there are 62 citations and changing to robot, several external links including encyclopedias and research societies.  While robotics may not be as hot a topic as creationism, it would be a reason for someone to come here and do research.  Maybe conservatives hold a different view of astronomy or robotics.  How will I know if it's not listed?

* As I'm reading this particular topic, some of the responses come across as vicious attacks on people.  I don't care if your are from India, Britain, or the U.S., your comments should be responded to in a professional manner.  This is NOT liberal media where responses are shouted down or changed.  This is supposed to be a conservative view of popular topics.  If you can't keep this professional, then you will lose lots of subscribers as well as persons just happening on this page.  Eliminate Liberal bias? What about conservative bias?  Ask [http://www.crawfordbroadcasting.com/~wmuz/bob_dutko.htm]Bob Dudko from 103.5 in southeast Michigan how to present both sides of a topic while still defending what you believe.  He does an excellent job.

* As I'm reading this particular topic, some of the responses come across as vicious attacks on people.  I don't care if your are from India, Britain, or the U.S., your comments should be responded to in a professional manner.  This is NOT liberal media where responses are shouted down or changed.  This is supposed to be a conservative view of popular topics.  If you can't keep this professional, then you will lose lots of subscribers as well as persons just happening on this page.  Eliminate Liberal bias? What about conservative bias?  Ask [http://www.crawfordbroadcasting.com/~wmuz/bob_dutko.htm]Bob Dudko from 103.5 in southeast Michigan how to present both sides of a topic while still defending what you believe.  He does an excellent job.

The downside of open editing is that it does let in a fair amount of unwanted edits.  You get a lot of good content but not all of it may be relevant or of suitable quality, and of course some of it is vandalism.  It's a cost-benefit equation and you have to decide whether you're prepared to accept the culture changes that happen when, like Wikipedia, your community tools up to handle the unwanted material.

The downside of open editing is that it does let in a fair amount of unwanted edits.  You get a lot of good content but not all of it may be relevant or of suitable quality, and of course some of it is vandalism.  It's a cost-benefit equation and you have to decide whether you're prepared to accept the culture changes that happen when, like Wikipedia, your community tools up to handle the unwanted material.

Open ''content'' is another thing missing from Conservapedia, and it beats me why. Logically if I wanted to start a specialized website like Wikipedia but with different quality standards, I'd take a subset of Wikipedia's content and modify it.  You can do that with Wikipedia's content because of the open license.  It's a great way to get a lot of basically good content and bring it up to your own standard.

Open ''content'' is another thing missing from Conservapedia, and it beats me why. (this is incorrect sentence structure) Logically if I wanted to start a specialized website like Wikipedia but with different quality standards, I'd take a subset of Wikipedia's content and modify it.  You can do that with Wikipedia's content because of the open license.  It's a great way to get a lot of basically (note the words basically) good content and bring it up to your own standard.

Anyway, those are two suggestions for how to improve the way in which Conservapedia works, which I've learned as a Wikipedia editor.  --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 22:04, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Anyway, those are two suggestions for how to improve the way in which Conservapedia works, which I've learned as a Wikipedia editor.  --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 22:04, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: I do not think Wikipedia is a viable educational resource.  I find it to be a a gossip tree, a smear machine, and a trivia database.  None of that is educational in a meaningful sense.  Anonymous IPs are great for gossip, smears and trivia; they are destructive for education.

: I do not think Wikipedia is a viable mudkip resource.  I find it to be a a gossip mudkip, (mudkips don't gossip you fool) a smear machine, and a trivia database.  None of that is educational in a meaningful sense.  Anonymous IPs are great for gossip, smears and trivia; they are destructive for education.

: Conservapedia has always been an educational resource, and will continue on that path.  We teach teenagers and adults.  Hundreds and thousands of them.  We learn ourselves in the process.  Conservapedia is a place to share insights, advance knowledge, and open minds that are closed.  I think we do that far better than Wikipedia, and will continue to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Conservapedia has always been an educational resource, and will continue on that path.  We teach teenagers and adults.  Hundreds and thousands of them.  We learn ourselves in the process.  Conservapedia is a place to share insights, advance knowledge, and open minds that are closed.  I think we do that far better than Wikipedia, and will continue to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Wikipedia is not going to go away. But it will not be respected as an encyclopedic resource until it solves its chief problems. And Conservapedia can help it, if it is willing to accept this help.  

Wikipedia is not going to go away. But it will not be respected as an encyclopedic resource until it solves its chief problems. And Conservapedia can help it, if it is willing to accept this help.  

I applaud the high quality of Wikipedia on most academic subjects, but "most" means 51% - not 99.9%. There are glaring errors in every [[politicized science]] article, and materialism (disguised as "methodological naturalism") fuels this. Users like FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua actually '''prevent''' the very open editing you espouse. All edits on significant scientific subjects are subject to the liberal filter of what Wikipedia itself calls "tag team editing". Its article series on [[global warming]] is the laughingstock of the scientific community. How can you have the gall to say there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of blatant pseudoscience? What percentage of climate scientists have to sign a petition or be surveyed before Wikipedia will admit that the science isn't settled? By failing to apply NPOV to the world's most prominent [[scientific debate]], Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot (or would, if it had legs to stand on ;-) and nullifies all its other work. People judge an encyclopedia by its most glaring mistakes.  

I applaud the high quality of Wikipedia on most academic subjects, but "most" means 51% - not 99.9%. There are glaring errors in every [[politicized science]] article, and materialism (disguised as "methodological naturalism") fuels this. Users like FeloniousMonk and KillerChihuahua actually '''prevent''' the very open editing you espouse. All edits on significant scientific subjects are subject to the liberal filter mudkip of what Wikipedia itself calls "tag team editing". Its article series on [[global warming]] is the laughingstock of the scientific community. How can you have the gall to say there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of blatant pseudoscience? What percentage of climate scientists have to sign a petition or be surveyed before Wikipedia will admit that the science isn't settled? By failing to apply NPOV to the world's most prominent [[scientific debate]], Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot (or would, if it had legs to stand on ;-) and nullifies all its other work. People judge an encyclopedia by its most glaring mistakes.  

Wikipedia has profited from open editing, and it will continue to do so to the extent that it lives up to its own creed. But using the "undue weight" policy to undermine neutrality has the effect of censoring minority opinions - even in articles dedicating to describing those minority opinions!

Wikipedia has profited from open editing, and it will continue to do so to the extent that it lives up to its own creed. But using the "undue weight" policy to undermine neutrality has the effect of censoring minority opinions - even in articles dedicating to describing those minority opinions!

Conservapedia must first make its main articles objective and seek to discipline users who shout down others when they are providing well-sourced or reasonable objections.  The community must be made fair, in other words, as well as accessible.  The Barack Obama article in particular needs a top-down rewriting.  After this is done, seek to reform Conservapedia's image as an objective source of information, and a reliable alternative to Wikipedia.  Perhaps search engines like Yahoo might be willing to work a deal with Conservapedia so Conservapedia results are shown higher, just as Google did with Wikipedia.  However, such a deal would never be considered until Conservapedia makes articles more objective and attracts enough editors to expand its number of pages with quality material.   

Conservapedia must first make its main articles objective and seek to discipline users who shout down others when they are providing well-sourced or reasonable objections.  The community must be made fair, in other words, as well as accessible.  The Barack Obama article in particular needs a top-down rewriting.  After this is done, seek to reform Conservapedia's image as an objective source of information, and a reliable alternative to Wikipedia.  Perhaps search engines like Yahoo might be willing to work a deal with Conservapedia so Conservapedia results are shown higher, just as Google did with Wikipedia.  However, such a deal would never be considered until Conservapedia makes articles more objective and attracts enough editors to expand its number of pages with quality material.   

It would be a long road taking at least 5-10 years for this to even begin.  I am willing to help, but want to see Conservapedia begin changing its primary articles and its level of objectivity first.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 09:56, 30 December 2009 (EST)

It would be a long road taking at least 5-10 years for this to even begin.  I am willing to troll further, but want to see Conservapedia begin changing its primary articles and its level of objectivity first.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 09:56, 30 December 2009 (EST)