Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Quality"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(James Ussher: original work!)
(self revert... gave myself another headache)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
:: This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered.  How does this compare to Wikipedia?  What type of sabotage was it?  5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience.
 
:: This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered.  How does this compare to Wikipedia?  What type of sabotage was it?  5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience.
 +
 +
:::See [[Wikipedia:Quality]]. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:::: Ah, I see now.  The random entries are listed below for us, and you list the ones for Wikipedia on its Quality page.  Well done!!!  We do far better than Wikipedia!
 +
 +
:::: In fact, I'm going to post a comparison from your good work on other pages so that others will be sure to see it. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
  
 
:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia:  judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article.  That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:: The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia:  judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article.  That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 02:44, April 20, 2007

Here is a survey of ten random pages:

5 good articles: 1, 2, 3. 8, 10
2 stubs: 4, 7
1 useless: 5
2 sabotage: 6, 9
This is interesting, but leaves questions unanswered. How does this compare to Wikipedia? What type of sabotage was it? 5 good articles out of 10 is probably better than Wikipedia, in my experience.
See Wikipedia:Quality. My ten-page survey of them turned up ZERO good articles but 5 'fair' ones. --Ed Poor 15:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I see now. The random entries are listed below for us, and you list the ones for Wikipedia on its Quality page. Well done!!! We do far better than Wikipedia!
In fact, I'm going to post a comparison from your good work on other pages so that others will be sure to see it. --Aschlafly 17:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
The analysis below is like the approach taken on Wikipedia: judge an article by how long it is, with more words meaning a better article. That's not our approach here, where we value conciseness as a true encyclopedia and learning resource does.--Aschlafly 13:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)


Biblical criticism

2000 words Looks encyclopedic

Violin

300 words Main authors: bobtexas, ebdpk, dpbsmith

James Ussher

Was it copied from Wikipedia? (original work) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

I assure you, it was not. I did not even consult the Wikipedia version, because the last time I had seen it, it contained a section essentially holding Ussher's chronology up to ridicule.--TerryHTalk 15:15, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, sorry, I already checked it - forget to remove the question. --Ed Poor 15:34, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Clothes

16 words Items worn on the body meant for the creation of warmth and comfort in various environments.

Privilege for a Private Corporation

130 words legal mumbo-jumbo

Help ma Boab

A euphemism employed by the Transhadrial to avoid blasphemy. (vandalism)

Colony

10 words A nation's settlement in a conquered or previously unsettled territory.


William Remington

440 words RobS (his spy series)

Disarmament treaties

26 words Position favored by Liberals who see it as a way to reduce the possibility of war but opposed by conservatives who feel that it weakens countries.

George Orwell

520 words (180 are quotes)