1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: + + + + + +
Debate:Has conservapedia failed to reach a critical mass? (view source)
Revision as of 19:25, April 8, 2007
, 19:25, April 8, 2007→YES!
Discuss.
Discuss.
==YES!==
==YES!==
Yes, I think so. It's possible that Conservapedia gets a second growth phase with better results, but the first one ended with many editors running straight against a wall.
The reasons are too complex to list here (though I might try to write an userspace article some time), but the short version is: The mix of policies (or lack thereof), extremely fuzzy site goals, clear favoritism of sysops, general hostility against science (or even simple concepts like "balance"), the complete unwillingness to learn from mistakes, and the fact that Conservapedia ''still'' defines itself directly through Wikipedia drove a good deal of people away or lowered their motivation to levels where actual content edits are a rarity.
I admit that the odds had been against Conservapedia in the beginning. All the attention in the beginning was of the "Hey, look at that if you need a good laugh!" kind. Still, quite a few people joined with the honest intent of helping. How many of those people are still here? How many are still contributing content? Conservapedia had ''international press coverage for weeks'', and how many editors who joined during those days are still active?
If there was another wave of press coverage RIGHT NOW, things would not be better. Before the next visitor wave arrives, things in here have to improve. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:25, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
==NO!==
==NO!==