2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 259:
Line 259: + + +
Debate:Can conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad (view source)
Revision as of 15:45, August 11, 2010
, 15:45, August 11, 2010Conservapedia's major problems that must be corrected.
While I believe CP can eventually grow to be very large, I don't think it will surpass Wikipedia because we, unlike them, support the '''truth''' which certainly does not masquerade as neutrality. Many people are sucked in to Wikipedia by the claim that it is neutral, mostly pseudo - intellectuals who will only further its [[liberal bias]]. We can, however, surpass Wikipedia in the search results as we already have done with many pages. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:33, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
While I believe CP can eventually grow to be very large, I don't think it will surpass Wikipedia because we, unlike them, support the '''truth''' which certainly does not masquerade as neutrality. Many people are sucked in to Wikipedia by the claim that it is neutral, mostly pseudo - intellectuals who will only further its [[liberal bias]]. We can, however, surpass Wikipedia in the search results as we already have done with many pages. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:33, 29 May 2010 (EDT)
Conservapedia's major problem at this time is lack of articles and information. For this reason I view it not as an encyclopedia, but as a political web page. One example of this is my recent research into "presque isle state park" located in PA. Wikipedia has a nice article that explains the park as it is today, it's history, War of 1812, etc... Conservapedia had no article at all! If Conservapedia is to become a better source of info, they must employ people who will get that article and countless others loaded into the system. Conservapedia must do away with the strong bias in favor of conservatism because it is simply a turn-off for most editors. A good place to start would be re-writing the article about the current President (Obama). The article starts out "allegedly born in Honolulu August 4, 1961" which is a theory that has been debunked numerous times by respected members of both political parties and also the more conservative media outlets. When a neutral reader looks at this, he or she is probably turned off by the article and moves on to Wikipedia. Just food for thought!