Changes

Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 10:04, March 20, 2008

978 bytes removed , 10:04, March 20, 2008

m

Reverted edits by FredWilson (Talk); changed back to last version by FellowChristian16

Line 396: Line 396:

I know that, I wrote a blog about 3 days after they banned me about getting people together to get Wikipedia Shut Down and within 2 hours it was cross posted on Wikipedia and now every one on Wikipedia except a few editors have a negative view on me.--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 19:01, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

−

~~== Comments ==~~

−

6. Instead you allow the opinions of editors stated as they are facts. Especially if that editor is and admin, or somebody important for Conservapedia. Example: "The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned '''by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.'''" - [[Wikipedia]]

−

~~ I'm not saying it's not true, it might be, as well as it might also be for Conservapedia, but where is he research that demonstrates that?~~

−

~~8. Unless it's bad for herself.~~

−

~~9. So allowing research from casual editors that might be teenagers?~~

−

~~12. Like this one:~~

−

~~{{expand}}~~

−

~~14. That might be a good thing, but also they should be verified to see if they really are experts.~~

−

~~15. Those that were banned, were banned for planning on vandalizing Wikipedia, not because they stated their opinion.~~

−

~~'''If you have strong arguments against this, don't delete it, but instead state those arguments.'''~~

Jallen

4,604

edits