Changes

:''"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length.  Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion."'' Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:''"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length.  Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion."'' Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Steech, your open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal thought.  It is the anathema to conciseness, so it's obviously you don't like Conservapedia's rule to be concise.  We've had that rule since the very beginning and it is essential to quality learning.  Wikipedia is a like a 3rd grade essay contest that gives points for more words.  Here, we focus on learning and teaching, which is why we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges while I don't think Wikipedia has helped anyone do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:05, 10 December 2009 (EST)

:Steech, your open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal thought.  It is the anathema to conciseness, so it's obvious you don't like Conservapedia's rule to be concise.  We've had that rule since the very beginning and it is essential to quality learning.  Wikipedia is a like a 3rd grade essay contest that gives points for more words.  Here, we focus on learning and teaching, which is why we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges while I don't think Wikipedia has helped anyone do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:05, 10 December 2009 (EST)