Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Quality"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: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) | :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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == [[Biblical criticism]] == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Was it [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_criticism copied from CreationWiki]? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Probably not, but, darn it all, TerryH should have clearly indicated its provenance on [[Talk:Biblical cricicism]], currently a nonexistent page. Even if it is 100% valid, which I'm guessing it is, without a statement of origin and authorship this article has a quality problem in my opinion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The CreationWiki article is the work of exactly two contributors, [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&action=history Tsommer and Temlakos]. The Conservapedia article is by TerryH. The Conservapedia article is almost identical to the last revision by Temlakos and does not seem to include recent changes by Tsommer, so very likely TerryH is Temlakos and this is a dual submission. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:18, 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)
Biblical criticism
Was it copied from CreationWiki?
Probably not, but, darn it all, TerryH should have clearly indicated its provenance on Talk:Biblical cricicism, currently a nonexistent page. Even if it is 100% valid, which I'm guessing it is, without a statement of origin and authorship this article has a quality problem in my opinion.
The CreationWiki article is the work of exactly two contributors, Tsommer and Temlakos. The Conservapedia article is by TerryH. The Conservapedia article is almost identical to the last revision by Temlakos and does not seem to include recent changes by Tsommer, so very likely TerryH is Temlakos and this is a dual submission. Dpbsmith 14:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)