13
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 243:
Line 243: +
Colbert Report Viewers (view source)
Revision as of 17:07, December 11, 2009
, 17:07, December 11, 2009→Open letter to Conservapedia
:::::''"If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia ... if you want to cite something use the '''original source'''."'' -- JAiken. You just proved my point. Wikipedia doesn't allow original sources as references, while Conservapedia does. From your example, and based on the differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia, if I were using both as a tool to help for researching purposes, Wikipedia would provide me with '''''zero''''' references to help assist further research; likewise, Conservapedia will provide a vast number of properly cited, original sources for academic purposes. Wikipedia is simply filled with opinion articles from journalists. If I wanted to go read ''The New York Times'' or HuffingtonPost, I'd go directly to their Web site. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:29, 11 December 2009 (EST)
:::::''"If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia ... if you want to cite something use the '''original source'''."'' -- JAiken. You just proved my point. Wikipedia doesn't allow original sources as references, while Conservapedia does. From your example, and based on the differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia, if I were using both as a tool to help for researching purposes, Wikipedia would provide me with '''''zero''''' references to help assist further research; likewise, Conservapedia will provide a vast number of properly cited, original sources for academic purposes. Wikipedia is simply filled with opinion articles from journalists. If I wanted to go read ''The New York Times'' or HuffingtonPost, I'd go directly to their Web site. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 00:29, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::I am sorry DerekE, but that claim is 100% false. Wikipedia does link to the original sources in their reference section. What they do not allow is original research/ideas. I think you have confused these terms and the meaning behind them. An original source is linking to the original full research paper by Craig Venter on the human genome. Wikipedia allows this and it is one of the only reasons a person should ever go to Wikipedia when doing serious work. On the other hand I cannot go to Wikipedia and post my own original thoughts/ideas/unverified research as fact. I would hope that Conservapedia does not allow that either. --[[User:JAiken|JAiken]] 12:07, 11 December 2009 (EST)
::::That's simply false. Wikipedia ''is'' propagating liberal falsehoods and censoring conservative truths, as illustrated by [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. One of the entries on that list discusses how Wikipedia editors have been 6 times more liberal than the general public.
::::That's simply false. Wikipedia ''is'' propagating liberal falsehoods and censoring conservative truths, as illustrated by [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. One of the entries on that list discusses how Wikipedia editors have been 6 times more liberal than the general public.