Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Quality"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
If we can get to 90% we call start bragging. So let's do it! {{unsigned|Ed Poor}} | If we can get to 90% we call start bragging. So let's do it! {{unsigned|Ed Poor}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Fantastic, Ed tries to conduct a survey to help this site, and Aschlafly finds a way to minimize the importance of the survey and throw out baseless arguments. Concise does not necessarily mean short. Me thinks Andy is confusing an encyclopedia with a dictionary. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 13:55, 19 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:55, April 19, 2007
I am sorry to say that I must give Conservapedia a failing grade, on the basis of this survey. Only 5 out of the 10 randomly selected articles was any good. Two more were merely definitions of the term (25 words or less). The rest should be deleted.
If we can get to 90% we call start bragging. So let's do it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)
- Fantastic, Ed tries to conduct a survey to help this site, and Aschlafly finds a way to minimize the importance of the survey and throw out baseless arguments. Concise does not necessarily mean short. Me thinks Andy is confusing an encyclopedia with a dictionary. ColinRtalk 13:55, 19 April 2007 (EDT)