1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + +
Debate:Has conservapedia failed to reach a critical mass? (view source)
Revision as of 19:23, April 8, 2007
, 19:23, April 8, 2007→NO!
[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=www.wikipedia.org&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=max&size=Medium&url=rockstargames.com something like this is the best I can do] --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 15:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=www.wikipedia.org&site1=&site2=&site3=&site4=&y=r&z=1&h=300&w=540&range=max&size=Medium&url=rockstargames.com something like this is the best I can do] --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 15:06, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::Andy, You're slightly off here. We're not talking about article count, unless you imply that the copying from Britannica led to tons of people suddenly contributing like crazy. And the landscape has ''radically'' changed. Wikipedia was effectively the first of its kind. People were not used to the concept and had general doubts that an open encyclopdia could work at all. Conservapedia builds up on ''years'' of foundation - hundreds of thousands of people know the wiki concept, and Wikipedia is the proof that it can work. Conservapedia had international press coverage and a massive traffic spike. And then... it ended. Very few people outside this site are paying attention to Conservapedia. Even the more recent press coverage mocks the site or just reports your choice quotes and doesn't dare to touch the issue of quality. Ask yourself why that is so.
::And you have one problem that Wikipedia didn't have: Serious competition. Conservapedia has to answer a tough question: "Why shouldn't I simply go to Wikipedia?" - Your ominous "liberal bias" didn't cut it. It attracted a few people who share this view to some degree, but... that's it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:23, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
==Comments==
==Comments==