Changes

::::: From this small sample set, it should be clear that Conservapedia has quite a different approach than Wikipedia. If nothing else, the people it attracts are more likely to be interested in traditional encyclopedia material like science and history, than in stuff like video games and cartoons. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 08:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: From this small sample set, it should be clear that Conservapedia has quite a different approach than Wikipedia. If nothing else, the people it attracts are more likely to be interested in traditional encyclopedia material like science and history, than in stuff like video games and cartoons. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 08:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interesting, although what your study does not take into account is that Wikipedia also has entries (probably much more complete ones) on the subjects you found in Conservapedia. At least, I'd wager they do; I can't be sure without knowing specifically what they are. Wikipedia has nearly 2 million entries (I say "entries", not "articles") compared to Conservapedia's 15,000 entries. Your study shows that Wikipedia has much mroe fluff. Of course it does; no one denies that. The implication that therefore Conservapedia has more serious topics, because more come up in a random search, is erroneous. If even 2/3 of Wikipedia's articles were fluff or substantially problematical (and that is by no means true), it would still have more than 600,000 more articles on encyclopedic topics than Conservapedia, most of them containing ''much'' more information (I certainly agree that Wikipedia could really use some more conciseness, but many articles here are grossly inadequate). And keep in mind that your pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse. Most people go to encyclopedias to look up a specific topic, not to hit the random article button. If someone looks for and finds a decent article on the [[Battle of the Nile]], fine. That it may share hard drive space with thousands of articles on albums doesn't really matter. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Interesting, although what your study does not take into account is that Wikipedia also has entries (probably much more complete ones) on the subjects you found in Conservapedia. At least, I'd wager they do; I can't be sure without knowing specifically what they are. Wikipedia has nearly 2 million entries (I say "entries", not "articles") compared to Conservapedia's 15,000 entries. Your study shows that Wikipedia has much mroe fluff. Of course it does; no one denies that. The implication that therefore Conservapedia has more serious topics, because more come up in a random search, is erroneous. If even 2/3 of Wikipedia's articles were fluff or substantially problematical (and that is by no means true), it would still have more than 600,000 more articles on encyclopedic topics than Conservapedia, most of them containing ''much'' more information (I certainly agree that Wikipedia could really use some more conciseness, but many articles here are grossly inadequate). And keep in mind that your pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse. Most people go to encyclopedias to look up a specific topic, not to hit the random article button. If someone looks for and finds a decent article on the [[Battle of the Nile]], fine. That it may share hard drive space with thousands of articles on albums doesn't really matter. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

 

::::::I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. [[User:Order]] 31 July 22:25

::::::I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. [[User:Order]] 31 July 22:25

::There's one other source, this [http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/Right_Chrono_Bib.html this stuff], the author of whom we've proven writes for extremists publications, inviolation of WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Yet the Foundation wants this junk in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's one other source, this [http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/Right_Chrono_Bib.html this stuff], the author of whom we've proven writes for extremists publications, inviolation of WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Yet the Foundation wants this junk in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 30 July 2007 (EDT)