Changes

I'd just like to ask here for the opinions of some of the people here: Do you believe that the best place to learn about a topic is an encyclopedia that has bias but doesn't admit it, that has bias and admits it, or that has no bias whatsoever? [[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 07:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I'd just like to ask here for the opinions of some of the people here: Do you believe that the best place to learn about a topic is an encyclopedia that has bias but doesn't admit it, that has bias and admits it, or that has no bias whatsoever? [[User:LucyJ|LucyJ]] 07:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Just watched the show and I was surprised that Colbert didn't go as hard on Mr. Schlafly as I expected.  For instance, Schlafly claimed that Conservapedia is a site where the best of the common people make their contributions and the correct information 'bubbles to the top.'  However, it's hard to see how this can happen if articles like Evolution ("ARTICLE OF THE YEAR EDITION") are completely locked down.  Granted, I understand the administrators have a legitimate need to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia has the same problem sometimes - but the article is basically cemented in a controversial, inaccurate, and poorly written form.  For instance, the first paragraph includes the sentence --  "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists."  This has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, doesn't transition into the next paragraph, and just feels like a cheap attempt to take a shot at the theory within a poor thesis statement.  And seriously guys, the pictures of Hitler and Stalin are laughable.  Did they also get slapped into the articles on socialism, homosexuality, and Islam?

Just watched the show and I was surprised that Colbert didn't go as hard on Mr. Schlafly as I expected.  For instance, Schlafly claimed that Conservapedia is a site where the best of the common people make their contributions and the correct information 'bubbles to the top.'  However, it's hard to see how this can happen if articles like Evolution ("ARTICLE OF THE YEAR EDITION") are completely locked down.  Granted, I understand the administrators have a legitimate need to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia has the same problem sometimes - but the article is basically cemented in a controversial, inaccurate, and poorly written form.  For instance, the first paragraph includes the sentence --  "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists."  This has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, doesn't transition into the next paragraph, and just feels like a cheap attempt to take a shot at the theory within a poor thesis statement.  And seriously guys, the pictures of Hitler and Stalin are laughable.  Did they also get slapped into the articles on socialism, homosexuality, and Islam? - Montag

: We keep as many articles open for general editing as often as possible.  Even when an article is "locked", it is still open for editing by frequent contributors who have earned additional privileges.  Unfortunately, there is a characteristic known as [[evolution syndrome]] that will obsessively rant and rave about the topic, deny clear factual truths, and never stop until all criticism of evolution and its adherents is censored.  Wikipedia is a home for that approach, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

: We keep as many articles open for general editing as often as possible.  Even when an article is "locked", it is still open for editing by frequent contributors who have earned additional privileges.  Unfortunately, there is a characteristic known as [[evolution syndrome]] that will obsessively rant and rave about the topic, deny clear factual truths, and never stop until all criticism of evolution and its adherents is censored.  Wikipedia is a home for that approach, but not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::It isn't, but it fits the flow of what I wrote better than "more stupid" which is more correct. My word is truthier. --[[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::It isn't, but it fits the flow of what I wrote better than "more stupid" which is more correct. My word is truthier. --[[User:JTutone|JTutone]] 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Perhaps now is a good time for me to re-suggest the [http://conservapedia.com/Wiki/conservapedia Welcome Banner], as discussed on the [[New Welcome Banner proposal]] page. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:Perhaps now is a good time for me to re-suggest the [http://conservapedia.com/Wiki/conservapedia Welcome Banner], as discussed on the [[New Welcome Banner proposal]] page. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)