SkipCaptcha
35,519
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 326:
Line 326: − + Line 475:
Line 475: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 23:19, August 9, 2021
, 23:19, August 9, 2021→Templates/infoboxes
<blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>
<blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>
I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.
I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.
Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later. This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source. But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later. This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source. But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia uses them to encourage new users to edit and help improve articles. Also distracting stub templates? I hardly consider:
Wikipedia uses them to encourage new users to edit and help improve articles. Also distracting stub templates? I hardly consider:
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. On the bottom the page distracting.
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. On the bottom the page distracting.
== 13 ==
Wikipedia uses them to encourage new users to edit and help improve articles. Also distracting stub templates? I hardly consider:
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. On the bottom the page distracting.
== Templates/infoboxes ==
Another note to add is that CP templates and infoboxes are generally more well-designed than those on WP. I've noticed on numerous Wikipedia articles that their templates appear boring and filled with meaningless content. In addition, our templates/infoboxes often use bold and bright colors which stand out and look professional while those on WP use lighter hues which appear bland. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 18:46, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
:You ''are'' being sarcastic: frankly, CP's templates are inferior in most ways to wikipedia's - often, they are just decade-old, unmaintained copies.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:00, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
::Well, whenever I go skim through WP articles, their templates just appear boring. When reading CP articles, our templates just pop out better and makes one want to examine it closely. There are also some more specific examples: for WP's infobox officeholder template, they don't use lines via <code><nowiki><hr/></nowiki></code> much which make everything look nicer, while we do. CP also has some more variation for infobox templates, namely [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:10, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
:::Indeed, you have improved both [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:16, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
::::Yeah, I made some adjustments. For [[Template:Infobox officeholder]] and Template:Infobox person, I added optional parameters to add military info based on the code in Template:Officeholder. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:19, August 9, 2021 (EDT)