Changes

:::Oh really? Then explain why you have articles on [[homosexuality]], [[Molly Ringwald]], [[Rush]] and [[Hebden Bridge]]. Would this be an example of [[deceit]]? [[User:Noemi|Noemi]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh really? Then explain why you have articles on [[homosexuality]], [[Molly Ringwald]], [[Rush]] and [[Hebden Bridge]]. Would this be an example of [[deceit]]? [[User:Noemi|Noemi]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I checked twenty random pages - probably not statistically accurate but I thought it might give some idea. We have six people (1 sportsperson, 3 historical figures, 1 fictional character, 1 celebrity) two european buildings, two American cities or states, two video games and one music album. We also have a Christian musical award, a year of the Islamic calendar, a mental disorder, an asteroid, a political foundation in India and an oil company in Vietnam, and a racehorse.

::::: I checked twenty random pages - probably not statistically accurate but I thought it might give some idea. We have six people (1 sportsperson, 3 historical figures, 1 fictional character, 1 celebrity) two european buildings, two American cities or states, two video games and one music album. We also have a Christian musical award, a year of the Islamic calendar, a mental disorder, an asteroid, a political foundation in India and an oil company in Vietnam, and a racehorse.

::::::::I have to come to the defense of [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. If the question is which encyclopedia has the higher fraction of serious topics, the approach is actually a good start. If you however want to measure the relative quality, you might want to do the following: First get a random sample in Conservapedia, and then lookup the corresponding article in Wikipedia, and compare those. And then get a random sample in Wikipedia, and compare those article with the corresponding ones in Conservapedia. But I still think that getting random samples is a good start. Maybe we should in the future agree on an experiment before we conduct it. [[User:Order]]

::::::::I have to come to the defense of [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. If the question is which encyclopedia has the higher fraction of serious topics, the approach is actually a good start. If you however want to measure the relative quality, you might want to do the following: First get a random sample in Conservapedia, and then lookup the corresponding article in Wikipedia, and compare those. And then get a random sample in Wikipedia, and compare those article with the corresponding ones in Conservapedia. But I still think that getting random samples is a good start. Maybe we should in the future agree on an experiment before we conduct it. [[User:Order]]

::::::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)

 

<small>"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."</small> Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --<font color="#0001CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font>^{<font color="OOFFAE">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font>} 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)