Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit, rollback
5,023
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
::Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia allows for original research. Why not have a Conservapedian contact a reputable pro-life organization and ask them how many people they think the average attendee shares his/her experience with? In fact, several organizations could be contacted. That would be a better way of approaching things. I worked for an organization where I had to interview people in order to get information. When I was trained, I was told to ASK and not merely assume. You get better information that way. Many times people make bad assumptions due to having less information at their disposal. For example, an actual pro-life organization might have a better estimate on the number of clergy who attend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:50, 24 January 2012 (EST)
::Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia allows for original research. Why not have a Conservapedian contact a reputable pro-life organization and ask them how many people they think the average attendee shares his/her experience with? In fact, several organizations could be contacted. That would be a better way of approaching things. I worked for an organization where I had to interview people in order to get information. When I was trained, I was told to ASK and not merely assume. You get better information that way. Many times people make bad assumptions due to having less information at their disposal. For example, an actual pro-life organization might have a better estimate on the number of clergy who attend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:50, 24 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Here is the contact information for an organization with a broad base of supporters from different backgrounds: National Right to Life Committee (202) 626-8800. Why not ask them instead of taking a more speculative approach? It seems to me that the more speculative an encyclopedia article is, the less encyclopedic it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:45, 24 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Here is the contact information for an organization with a broad base of supporters from different backgrounds: National Right to Life Committee (202) 626-8800. Why not ask them instead of taking a more speculative approach? It seems to me that the more speculative an encyclopedia article is, the less encyclopedic it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:45, 24 January 2012 (EST)
I agree with User:Conservative: The statement ''The influence of the March for Life is approximately 20 times its attendance, as the average person who attends communicates his participation to 20 others'' is purely speculative, and stating it as a fact without further research makes the whole section looking dubious! Can't you rephrase the paragraph without made-up numbers? Or qualify them somewhat, like: ''obviously millions of people are influenced by the March for Life?''
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:51, 25 January 2012 (EST)
::AugustO, you seem to be the anti-Voltaire: "I don't disagree with what you say, but I still don't think you should say it." Well, why not? No one disputes it, it's an obvious truth, and a quantified estimate is a powerful way to bring home the impact of these marches. This is too important a topic to be censoring key information.
::Conservative, would you also want to give us a phone number to ring to ascertain that the sky is blue??? Sapere aude, my friend - dare to know for yourself! Yes, rigor is paramount to an encyclopedia, but where truths are uncontentious, jumping through hoops to fulfil some misguided notion of "due process" is a simple waste of time. Please, stop trying to censor this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 25 January 2012 (EST)
:::I'm not opposed to a ''quantified estimate'', I'm against an estimate which is disguised as a fact - as it is done here: '''The influence of the March for Life is approximately 20 times its attendance, as the average person who attends communicates his participation to 20 others''' Where does the '''fact''' that the average person communicates his participation to 20 others come from? I'm missing a phrase like ''it can be estimated that the average persons communicates his participation to 20 others''.
:::And still then it would be nice to see whether such an estimate holds, whether it was done with other events, etc - we spoke about the problem of overlap...
:::So, I disagree which the way some things are said, and I disagree with the way they are presented (estimates disguised as facts, for instance). And obviously, I don't think that wrong or even only misleading statements should be made in a truthful encyclopedia - whatever Voltaire's point of view on this subject may have been.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:01, 25 January 2012 (EST)
== Display ==
I used the <nowiki><gallery></nowiki> - tag to display the pictures. If you don't think that this is an improvement, please remove it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:27, 30 January 2012 (EST)