Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Quality"
(Survey results: 4 good, 2 dicdef, 2 useless, 1 suspected parody, 1 suspected copyvio) |
(self revert... gave myself another headache) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Here is a survey of ten random pages: | Here is a survey of ten random pages: | ||
| − | : | + | :5 good articles: 1, 2, 3. 8, 10 |
| − | :2 | + | :2 stubs: 4, 7 |
| − | :2 | + | :1 useless: 5 |
| − | : | + | :2 sabotage: 6, 9 |
| − | : | + | |
| + | :: This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered. How does this compare to Wikipedia? What type of sabotage was it? 5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::See [[Wikipedia:Quality]]. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::: Ah, I see now. The random entries are listed below for us, and you list the ones for Wikipedia on its Quality page. Well done!!! We do far better than Wikipedia! | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::: In fact, I'm going to post a comparison from your good work on other pages so that others will be sure to see it. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia: judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article. That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
==[[Biblical criticism]]== | ==[[Biblical criticism]]== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 26: | ||
==[[James Ussher]]== | ==[[James Ussher]]== | ||
| − | Was it copied from Wikipedia? | + | <s>Was it copied from Wikipedia?</s> (original work) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I assure you, it was not. I did not even consult the Wikipedia version, because the last time I had seen it, it contained a section essentially holding Ussher's chronology up to ridicule.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 15:15, 19 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Yes, sorry, I already checked it - forget to remove the question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
==[[Clothes]]== | ==[[Clothes]]== | ||
Latest revision as of 02:44, April 20, 2007
Here is a survey of ten random pages:
- 5 good articles: 1, 2, 3. 8, 10
- 2 stubs: 4, 7
- 1 useless: 5
- 2 sabotage: 6, 9
- This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered. How does this compare to Wikipedia? What type of sabotage was it? 5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience.
- See Wikipedia:Quality. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --Ed Poor 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
- Ah, I see now. The random entries are listed below for us, and you list the ones for Wikipedia on its Quality page. Well done!!! We do far better than Wikipedia!
- In fact, I'm going to post a comparison from your good work on other pages so that others will be sure to see it. --Aschlafly 17:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
- The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia: judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article. That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--Aschlafly 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Biblical criticism
2000 words Looks encyclopedic
Violin
300 words Main authors: bobtexas, ebdpk, dpbsmith
James Ussher
Was it copied from Wikipedia? (original work)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher
- I assure you, it was not. I did not even consult the Wikipedia version, because the last time I had seen it, it contained a section essentially holding Ussher's chronology up to ridicule.--TerryHTalk 15:15, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, sorry, I already checked it - forget to remove the question. --Ed Poor 15:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Clothes
16 words Items worn on the body meant for the creation of warmth and comfort in various environments.
Privilege for a Private Corporation
130 words legal mumbo-jumbo
Help ma Boab
A euphemism employed by the Transhadrial to avoid blasphemy. (vandalism)
Colony
10 words A nation's settlement in a conquered or previously unsettled territory.
William Remington
440 words RobS (his spy series)
Disarmament treaties
26 words Position favored by Liberals who see it as a way to reduce the possibility of war but opposed by conservatives who feel that it weakens countries.
George Orwell
520 words (180 are quotes)