Changes

:::::In my opinion an online encyclopedia shouldn't ever be cited, and I would honestly prefer that no encyclopedia be cited. My reason for this is that all encyclopedias should present a wide and unbiased view on any subject, and one that backs up all statements and sources with a citation. That way anyone studying the subject can gain a more detailed understanding by pursuing that citation and hopefully citing it. Faced with all the arguments and evidence a student can then come to his or her own decision on the subject. While I'm sure you'll agree there are some facts that are unassailable (e.g. France is in Europe, the second World War did happen), many areas of science, politics and religion should be open to honest debate. I think a good encyclopedia should present as many sides to these arguments as possible and allow the reader to come to their own decision, instead of being forced to accept the thinking or beliefs of their peers without questioning it. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that you can often find both sides of the argument on its website. If you feel this isn't the case and that your worldview isn't properly represented then I appreciate your concern. However, I do feel that Conservapedia goes too far in the other direction and only includes the arguments for your own opinions and not those of the other side. I think this does your encyclopedia an injustice and while this discrepancy stands will make it the inferior choice to Wikipedia. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 19:28, 13 December 2009 (MST)

:::::In my opinion an online encyclopedia shouldn't ever be cited, and I would honestly prefer that no encyclopedia be cited. My reason for this is that all encyclopedias should present a wide and unbiased view on any subject, and one that backs up all statements and sources with a citation. That way anyone studying the subject can gain a more detailed understanding by pursuing that citation and hopefully citing it. Faced with all the arguments and evidence a student can then come to his or her own decision on the subject. While I'm sure you'll agree there are some facts that are unassailable (e.g. France is in Europe, the second World War did happen), many areas of science, politics and religion should be open to honest debate. I think a good encyclopedia should present as many sides to these arguments as possible and allow the reader to come to their own decision, instead of being forced to accept the thinking or beliefs of their peers without questioning it. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that you can often find both sides of the argument on its website. If you feel this isn't the case and that your worldview isn't properly represented then I appreciate your concern. However, I do feel that Conservapedia goes too far in the other direction and only includes the arguments for your own opinions and not those of the other side. I think this does your encyclopedia an injustice and while this discrepancy stands will make it the inferior choice to Wikipedia. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 19:28, 13 December 2009 (MST)

::::::Really, Nick, you honestly feel that Wikipedia has "both sides of the argument" on [[evolution]], [[abortion]] and other important issues?  Please show me where, for example, Wikipedia's entry on abortion informs readers about how it causes premature birth (the major cause of premature death and lifelong disabilities) in future-born children.  The scientific evidence and common sense are overwhelming that abortion causes such harm, yet Wikipedia omits it.  Among African-Americans, abortion is at three times the rate for Caucasians, and devastating premature birth in the African-American community is three times the Caucasian rate.  Why does Wikipedia omit that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Really, Nick, you honestly feel that Wikipedia has "both sides of the argument" on [[evolution]], [[abortion]] and other important issues?  Please show me where, for example, Wikipedia's entry on abortion informs readers about how it causes premature birth (the major cause of infant mortality and lifelong disabilities) in future-born children.  The scientific evidence and common sense are overwhelming that abortion causes such harm, yet Wikipedia omits it.  Among African-Americans, abortion is at three times the rate for Caucasians, and devastating premature birth in the African-American community is three times the Caucasian rate.  Why does Wikipedia omit that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:49, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Second, to Insufficient.  Why are you even here?  All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible.  It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order.  I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)

Second, to Insufficient.  Why are you even here?  All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible.  It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order.  I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST)