8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 79:
Line 79: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Colbert Report Viewers (view source)
Revision as of 03:43, December 13, 2009
, 03:43, December 13, 2009no edit summary
::Which anecdote did you find credible? I'm seen some claims but found them lacking in specifics, and thus I did not find them to be credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)
::Which anecdote did you find credible? I'm seen some claims but found them lacking in specifics, and thus I did not find them to be credible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 12 December 2009 (EST)
I guess our differences come down to whether having more information is a good thing. Personally, I find the math articles on Conservapedia to generally be incredibly lacking. If all you want is a definition of a term then sure, a one sentence article is acceptable, but if you actually want to learn, it is near worthless. Imagine if the article on George Washington only said "George Washington was the first president of the United States. He was in office from 1789-1797". Sure it tells you who he was, but it doesn't tell you why he was significant. It doesn't show you how he fits in with history as a whole.
The problem is that many of your articles define the term, but the fail to provide any elaboration. If you never make connections between topics, then you're no better then a dictionary.
The student may not understand everything in the article but that's not the point. I certianly don't understand all of the math articles on Wikipedia. I am not everyone. Encyclopedias are written for a broad audience. Some people will understnad only the basics, while other people will easily understand everything. Why deny information to the people who could use it?
For that matter, there are many articles I understand and benefit from which I never would have understood a couple years ago. Should we really censor the articles just for the sake of my middle school self?
Looking at your example of Fundamental theorem of calculus, Your article contains the defintion of the thoerem, but that's it. It's suitable for a first year calculus student cramming for a test, but it doesn't help them learn. It doesn't tell them the intuitive basis behind the thoerem. It doesn't tell them the applications of the formula.
It doesn't even try to generalize or connect it to other topics.
Seeing as you apparently think this is a good thing, I guess there's no real way for us to ever be on the same page. Good luck on Conservkitionary. [[User:EdmundG|EdmundG]] 22:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)