Difference between revisions of "Talk:Wikipedia"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 
Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 
Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry.  If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected.  Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete.  [[User:treeman]] 12:22, 11 March 2007

Revision as of 16:08, March 12, 2007

Sources

If you follow the link to Cecil DeMille's wikipedia entry you'll notice that the trivia section is gone ... you should be careful to use references that are constantly being updated as they might not always prove your point. Another case of being careful what you quote: here's an article saying 51% believe god created humans, 30% say humans evolved w/ God's help and 15% say we evolved w/o God. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml Polls aren't generally scientific and as shown by the edits to this entry you can find all sorts of different percentages for who believes what. Jrssr5 14:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

"The wikipedia entry accuses Conservapedia of having its own bias..." How ridiculous. How would a place called "Conservapedia" POSSIBLY have any sort of "bias"? (What's the wiki tag for 'sarcasm'?) --Sandbagger 16:22, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The poll cited for belief by the US public in evolution needs to be updated. It's almost a decade old. Harris has one from 2005. [1] --Dave3172 18:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a more credible source for that 9% poll link?--Elamdri 01:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

The last two bracketed sentences in the first section should be removed as they are not consistent with a formal encyclopaedia entry. If there is not a consensus on this point, at the very least the spelling should be corrected. Also, it seems that as of 12 March 2007, Wikipedia has an article on Conservapedia which makes the second part of this article obsolete. User:treeman 12:22, 11 March 2007