Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template talk:AboutC (view source)

Revision as of 21:53, January 10, 2007

895 bytes added ,  21:53, January 10, 2007
no edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:  
The page view count does not reflect how much people use it as a source.  it just shows that we have been working to build the site.  Conservapedia at this point has very rarely if at all been used as a source.  In fact, Conservapedia is not even ready to be used as a source.  Most of the entries are terribly short and totaly unusable as source material.  We '''''do not even have an entry on World War II'''''  Probably more than 55,000 of the views are by people from our world history class.  If we had 1,000,000 page views it might be something to brag about, but i am not even sure if that is a good idea.
 
The page view count does not reflect how much people use it as a source.  it just shows that we have been working to build the site.  Conservapedia at this point has very rarely if at all been used as a source.  In fact, Conservapedia is not even ready to be used as a source.  Most of the entries are terribly short and totaly unusable as source material.  We '''''do not even have an entry on World War II'''''  Probably more than 55,000 of the views are by people from our world history class.  If we had 1,000,000 page views it might be something to brag about, but i am not even sure if that is a good idea.
 
* REPLY: "it just shows that we have been working to build the site"..... exactly. We want people to know that we have been working on this. It's not just a good idea with no one really doing anything. "Most of the entries are terribly short and totally unusable".... that's completely wrong. I would rephrase as "most of our articles are short but all are usable." How many articles can you give that are "totally unusable?" [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:48, 10 January 2007 (EST)
 
* REPLY: "it just shows that we have been working to build the site"..... exactly. We want people to know that we have been working on this. It's not just a good idea with no one really doing anything. "Most of the entries are terribly short and totally unusable".... that's completely wrong. I would rephrase as "most of our articles are short but all are usable." How many articles can you give that are "totally unusable?" [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:48, 10 January 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
:'''Comment:''' Page views are like attendance.  It's often the first question anyone asks a resource:  how often was it used?  So it is important to display the page views number, regardless of whether you think it is big or small.
 +
 +
: Also, we have this fundamental difference with Wikipedia:  Conservapedia is an educational resource, while Wikipedia is not.  We don't want 3 million users because quality inevitably declines, as it has on Wikipedia.  Bias would also inevitably increase.  We don't believe in direct democracy.  We want a small number of users who contribute quality material.  And evidently it has been used over 61,000 times, far more than one would expect merely from posting 2500 entries.
 +
 +
: Finally, we do have 24 entries discussing World War II.  Be sure to click "Search" not "Go" to find all the material.  --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:53, 10 January 2007 (EST)
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,256

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/9779"

Navigation menu