20
edits
Changes
Conservapedia:Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be (view source)
Revision as of 21:20, July 16, 2007
, 21:20, July 16, 2007→YES
Under the circumstances, Conservapedia has a definite mission and has every good reason to be proud of that mission.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 20:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
Under the circumstances, Conservapedia has a definite mission and has every good reason to be proud of that mission.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 20:26, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:What if the UN were to pass a resolution saying that 3 is even or that the Commonwealth has subjects? =)
:Sorry, I couldn't resist, but I am really struggling to understand what these examples are supposed to mean. Just because there is a remote possibility that the UN could make some stupid resolution that everyone would ignore, the citizens of each country should collectively ignore the rest of the world? I honestly have no idea what you mean. Anyway, these "impolite" articles you talk about. To arrive at one on Wikipedia, a user would need to type in an "impolite" word, just as they could on, say, Google, where they would probably find far more offensive material. Besides, I really can't think of a subject which is excluded from polite conversation for a good reason - it's mostly just culture-specific taboos that we were brought up with. For example, you may well have no problem talking to a complete stranger about a recent murder (which is widely accepted as being immoral), but would you want to bring up sex (which isn't)? I certainly wouldn't, though I realise it is completely irrational.
:As for the more frivolous or obscure articles which seem to be criticised here a lot, if the Wikimedia Foundation is happy to host them, I really can't see a possible problem. Nobody forces you to read these articles, and if you aren't interested in their subjects, you probably never will. And just because you aren't interested in, say, obscure species of beetle or individual episodes of TV programmes, doesn't mean no-one else should be - after all, someone was clearly interested enough to write the articles. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 17:20, 16 July 2007 (EDT)