Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia"
(refined) |
(add further explanation about facts per user's request) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
6. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. | 6. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. | ||
| − | 7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts, while Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public are free to censor factual information. | + | 7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts, while Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public are free to censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 22:27, March 21, 2007
1. We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
2. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.
3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children.
4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.
5. We allow original works, while Wikipedia does not.
6. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.
7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts, while Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public are free to censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.--Aschlafly 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)