Changes

5.  Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English users are American.  Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users.  Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg".  Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American.  Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

5.  Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English users are American.  Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users.  Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg".  Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American.  Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

6.  The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred.

6.  The entry for the Spanish Golden Age does not even tell the reader when it occurred, but makes the doubtful claim that the Spanish Golden Age flourished in Latin America.

7.  Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia.  Conservapedia avoids these like a true encyclopedia.

7.  Gossip and vulgarity are pervasive on Wikipedia.  Many entries read like the National Enquirer.  In some ways Wikipedia has even lower standards than the National Enquirer.  Conservapedia avoids gossip and vulgarity, just as a true encyclopedia does.

8.  Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.  On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.

8.  Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored.  On Conservapedia, contributions that fit the above guidelines are respected to the maximum extent possible.

The reasons cited here for immediately deleting "conservapedia" are pretextual. Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries. But those demanding deletion of this entry do not complain in the same way about the other entries. Instead, they demand that this particular entry be deleted. Simply put, nothing except political bias justifies defacing this entry with the "speedy delete" notice. This entry is not defamatory or offensive and it is obviously noteworthy and useful to many people. The lengthy debate here is strong evidence that the entry should remain. It will receive far more visits than tens of thousands of other entries that remain.  How many other conservative entries have been censored by Wikipedia editors?

The reasons cited here for immediately deleting "conservapedia" are pretextual. Those same reasons would require deleting tens of thousands of other Wikipedia entries. But those demanding deletion of this entry do not complain in the same way about the other entries. Instead, they demand that this particular entry be deleted. Simply put, nothing except political bias justifies defacing this entry with the "speedy delete" notice. This entry is not defamatory or offensive and it is obviously noteworthy and useful to many people. The lengthy debate here is strong evidence that the entry should remain. It will receive far more visits than tens of thousands of other entries that remain.  How many other conservative entries have been censored by Wikipedia editors?

15.  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not take steps to reduce bias or provide balance.  For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad [[money]] driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

15.  Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not take steps to reduce bias or provide balance.  For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left.  In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen.  For example, even though most Americans (and probably most of the world) reject the theory of [[evolution]],<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</ref> Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evolution</ref>  Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias in the absence of affirmative steps to limit it.  [[Gresham's Law]] reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action.  As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.

16.  Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]]

16.  Wikipedia has many entries on mathematical concepts, but lacks any entry on the basic concept of an [[elementary proof]].  Elementary proofs require a rigor lacking in many mathematical claims promoted on Wikipedia.

== References ==

== References ==