18
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 83:
Line 83: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (view source)
Revision as of 23:39, March 21, 2007
, 23:39, March 21, 2007Neutral? Censorship?
: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
: Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: [[Alger Hiss]]. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --[[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
== Neutral? Censorship? ==
''"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."''
I find it comical that you think this encyclopaedia is neutral. Conservapedia is anything but neutral. I was going to create/edit a few articles according to the commandments, but as I was looking through various articles I noticed that they all seem to be biased towards one point of view. I will try and help the encyclopedia, respecting the rules and opinions here, but it seems to be quite hard to write from a point of view that you don't necessarily agree with rather than a neutral point of view.
''"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "''
This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is [[Intercourse|Sex]]. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067000/sexual-intercourse|Sexual Intercourse]. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.
I shall return. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)