1,023
edits
Changes
no edit summary
The page view count does not reflect how much people use it as a source. it just shows that we have been working to build the site. Conservapedia at this point has very rarely if at all been used as a source. In fact, Conservapedia is not even ready to be used as a source. Most of the entries are terribly short and totaly unusable as source material. We '''''do not even have an entry on World War II''''' Probably more than 55,000 of the views are by people from our world history class. If we had 1,000,000 page views it might be something to brag about, but i am not even sure if that is a good idea.
The page view count does not reflect how much people use it as a source. it just shows that we have been working to build the site. Conservapedia at this point has very rarely if at all been used as a source. In fact, Conservapedia is not even ready to be used as a source. Most of the entries are terribly short and totaly unusable as source material. We '''''do not even have an entry on World War II''''' Probably more than 55,000 of the views are by people from our world history class. If we had 1,000,000 page views it might be something to brag about, but i am not even sure if that is a good idea.
* REPLY: "it just shows that we have been working to build the site"..... exactly. We want people to know that we have been working on this. It's not just a good idea with no one really doing anything. "Most of the entries are terribly short and totally unusable".... that's completely wrong. I would rephrase as "most of our articles are short but all are usable." How many articles can you give that are "totally unusable?" [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:48, 10 January 2007 (EST)