Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(replies) |
(Is creationwiki an authority?) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
: A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | : A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | :: Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:38, March 21, 2007
I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--AmesG 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
- Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--Aschlafly 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this talk page. Tmtoulouse 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)