Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
We need a scalpel, not an axe
::Some contributors make a big deal about adding info to the encyclopedia which is at such a high academic level that less than 1% of our readers can follow it. They have defied repeated requests to provide gentle introductions to these advanced concepts, almost as if they '''want''' to make our encyclopedia inaccessible. See my essay (soon to be written) on [[Campaign to make Conservapedia unusable]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 22 February 2013 (EST)
::Some contributors make a big deal about adding info to the encyclopedia which is at such a high academic level that less than 1% of our readers can follow it. They have defied repeated requests to provide gentle introductions to these advanced concepts, almost as if they '''want''' to make our encyclopedia inaccessible. See my essay (soon to be written) on [[Campaign to make Conservapedia unusable]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:13, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:::OK, I'll look forward to it. In the meantime, should we just delete the incomprehensible stuff? It's not as if most readers need it, and it just makes things more difficult, except for, like you said, less than 1% of the readers. [[User:DanAP|DanAP]] 09:19, 22 February 2013 (EST)
::It's not incomprehensible, it's just advanced. Let's simply put the formal definitions at the end of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:24, 22 February 2013 (EST)