Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hacker (Talk | contribs) at 13:00, 15 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.
Conservlogo.png


Additions

Great additions, Ed! --~ TK MyTalk 22:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)


British English

NO LONGER BANNED

We non US English speakers now have freedom to speak

General questions

I think you meant authoritative support, but I won't correct it, it's your doc. So are you still going to say your site is neutral?--AmesG 17:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Good point. Thanks. I corrected it.--Aschlafly 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Authoritative Source

I would really like to know more about this "authoritative" source. What counts as "journalist opinion" vs. "reporting of facts" this is particularly important in regards to issues being raised at on this talk page. Tmtoulouse 17:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

A big flaw in Wikipedia's system is that it treats journalist's opinions as authorities. They aren't. In a court of law, such attempts would be laughable.--Aschlafly 17:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Does this mean that Creationwiki is not considered authoritative? --Mtur 17:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
So if an article written by a journalist is quoted and its merely reporting events "such and such happened" "this was said by this person" then the source is fine? Tmtoulouse 17:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Sure, that's fine. But Wikipedia improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion.--Aschlafly 18:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Its not so much that "Wikipedia" improperly converts a journalist's biased opinion into a factual assertion but that a particular editor did. That could happen here too. Such edits remain until another editor changes them. The more popular the article the quicker questionable edits are likely to be changed.
WhatIsG0ing0n 04:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Original research

Point 5 should be clarified so that it doesn't clash with "always cite sources" and "must be true and verifiable". Original Research can get out of hand very quickly, I think. --Sid 3050 17:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Correct, in the hands of a responsible editor original research can add synthesis of ideas that would otherwise be impossible to include, and can be valuable. The reason it is shunned on Wikipedia though is that you wind up getting every crank out there with a new "unified theory of everything" or a high school algebraic solution to Fermat's Last Theorm that is being repressed by the establishment claiming a right to publish it here. Tmtoulouse 17:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
My issue exactly. I'm not THAT much of a fan of the OR rule myself, but I can understand why it's there and thus support it in general. --Sid 3050 17:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Original work can be labeled as such. There is no reason for Wikipedia to censor it, except to enforce its liberal view of the world.--Aschlafly 18:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
So if I come up with my own theory of how the universe was created, I could post it here as OR without the need to cite any sources? And the admins won't be allowed to delete it, although it shows a complete lack of backing by anybody? ...thank you. :D --Sid 3050 18:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't know Mr. Schlafly, as I said I can see the value of original works to a certain extent, but as more and more of the George Hammond's of the world find this site you may be innudated with original research that is nothing but a detractor and a nuisance. There are many, many individuals on the internet with all kinds of crazy ideas and all of them would love a place to post them where they will get views. The questions becomes do you want your site to be a repository for all the crazy theories of the internet? If not there needs to be some sort of qualification, restriction or clarification. However, that being said we are not at the moment being innudated with such entries. This policy may work for now, its just something to keep in mind. Tmtoulouse 18:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
If properly labeled, then I don't see a problem. We'll see. Wikipedia allows hundreds of thousands of entries of pure junk, such as terms invented for rap songs. Wikipedia's complete ban on original work seems a bit contrived and limiting to me. We shouldn't be stuck in the past and act like nothing new is good.--Aschlafly 18:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree that some original work should be allowed, letting any and all OR into Conservapedia articles would create a terrible mess. Somebody could come and claim "Moses and Jesus fought a boxing match in heaven", and nobody would be able to argue. Perhaps we should merely allow inflections and commentary, based off of what can be gathered in a source? Wikipedia doesn't allow this. --Hojimachongtalk 18:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The presentation of new ideas is perfectly acceptable, but a freely editable encyclopedia is not the correct venue for this. Protecting your ownership of these original ideas is very difficult when both the statement of the idea and developer of it can be changed by anyone with a free account. Additionally, users shouldn't be given the perception that new ideas are widely accepted, when in most cases they are not accepted until they are no longer considered 'new'. --Charliemc86 17:37, 21 March 2007 (CST)
Such commentary might border on opinions and unencyclopedic language, though. (Funny thing is that Conservapedia doesn't even have a rule about encyclopedic tone...) Or will we allow "49.9% of the population" to be changed to "less than half the population" and "50.1%" to "the majority"? It's certainly not wrong, but it's also not what an encyclopedic article would write (Disclaimer: I'm not 100% familiar with Wiki rules, but I think I recall a rule about using exact terms and numbers if possible.). I think Conservapedia has enough issues with being taken seriously already. --Sid 3050 18:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
The very existence of Conservapedia is a joke. People who disband from a freely editable encyclopedia because they believe it is biased simply don't wish to have their statements checked by people with opposing viewpoints. You're right that people aren't taking it seriously, but I doubt minor changes to the rules will make people overlook that constant, unfounded criticism of Wikipedia that runs rampant in so many articles here. --Charliemc86 18:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)
(chuckles) I agree with you, but I still think that it may have a chance of becoming a bit... more accepted (as more than a source of endless entertainment at least =P). Thus, I support "minor" changes to the rules when they have the potential of making a difference in the way people apply them.
Broadly allowing all forms of OR can lead to chaos, and a change of the rules later on is tied to much clean-up work. If the rule stays, then there should at least be some clarification, for example in the form Hojimachong suggested. --Sid 3050 19:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip

Point 1 is baseless criticism of Wikipedia. The statement "We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it" implies that Wikipedia allows gossip, which it does not. I propose that this difference be removed from the list. --Charliemc86 17:01, 21 March 2007 (CST)

You can't be serious. Are you? Numerous entries in Wikipedia have gossip that would never appear in a real encyclopedia. We have several examples in Bias in Wikipedia but that is only the tip of the iceberg.--Aschlafly 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm not here to dispute the fact that gossip exists on Wikipedia. The differences page implies that it is allowed or encouraged, which it is not. A careful reading of the rules for editing on Wikipedia clearly excludes gossip from the set of valid information sources. --Charliemc86 17:12, 21 March 2007 (CST)
Which Wikipedia rule forbids gossip??? Show me and let's enforce it against what, about 100,000 entries there?--Aschlafly 18:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia refers to it as NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The full explanation of where and when opinions (including gossip/second-hand opinions) may be used is located here: [1] --Charliemc86 17:24, 21 March 2007 (CST)
OK, I went to your link and searched on the word "gossip". It doesn't appear. Wikipedia has no rule against gossip. Gossip is pervasive on Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 18:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
You have to dig a little bit further into the policies to see it stated - "Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here." --Mtur 18:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
A simple text search for the word gossip returns no hits, however gossip fits into the larger category of opinion. The citation of opinions on Wikipedia is permitted, but under specific guidelines. Show just one of these 100,000 entries that use gossip and cite it as fact, and I'll find five pages that enforced this regulation. --Charliemc86 17:29, 21 March 2007 (CST)
Gossip is different from "opinion". Come on, let's not pretend that we don't know what gossip is. The "fact" that John Tower's ex-wife refused to accept flowers from him as she was dying in the hospital is gossip. Wikipedia allows it.--Aschlafly 18:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
That statement doesn't appear on Wikipedia. Not all opinions are gossip, but gossip is wholly contained in the realm of opinion. --Charliemc86 17:40, 21 March 2007 (CST)
Really, has Wikipedia deleted it? If so, then it was only after criticism here. Check out the entry on Bertrand Russell on Wikipedia and more gossip greets the reader. It's pervasive. By the way, facts often qualify as gossip, so your definition is not correct.--Aschlafly 18:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't you think you're giving yourself a little bit too much credit there? You make it sound as if all of Wikipedia scans your massively important list for things to correct. The probability of somebody reading your list and then editing it is quite small, compared to people getting to the page through other ways and editing it in the normal Wiki process. --Sid 3050 18:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Criticizing a 1.5 million-page wiki based on a few of its worst pages isn't fair, especially when they clearly go against the wiki's policy. (much like Wikipedia's article on Conservapedia isn't really fair for picking out a few of the worst articles here, articles that are likely to be improved up within a few weeks or months) --Interiot 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Andy, you've given examples of gossip, but if we could come up with an actual definition to follow, that would be helpful. Gossip is in the eye of the beholder.Palmd001 18:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My suggestion is this: Personal websites may not be used as an article's reference. If we put that into force we will save ourselves enormous amounts of difficulty. Gossip is always personal opinion. Personal websites abound in gossip. And, it is often presented as part of a larger page that has some attention getting element. An example is in the Scientology article where Andreas Heldal-Lund's personal site, xenu.net is cited [2] for his hand typed representation of a court document. But also appearing on the page are his evaluations and criticisms and bias about the court document and surrounding issues. Terryeo 18:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

For further exposition on "personal websites" interested editors should review this discussion. Tmtoulouse 19:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, your definition of gossip seems to be information that sheds negative light on a person or idea that you support. Please correct me with an explicit definition? --Charliemc86 17:50, 21 March 2007 (CST)

Isn't saying that wikipedia deleted something because of your criticism a form of gossip? What proof do you have that it was your criticism that caused the edit? Wikipedia is under constant internal scrutiny from a large population of editors. Myk 18:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think the only instance when a Wiki edit was actually (quasi-)proven to originate here was the issue of "elementary proof" or whatever the name was. And that was a case of "...well, you could've created the entry yourself in the time you spent writing the criticism". --Sid 3050 19:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to mention Wikipedia actively discourages anything like debate topics, let alone links to it from the sidebar. Gossip indeed. --Interiot 20:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Folks, I'm not going to debate the pervasive gossip in Wikipedia with you further. At the rate you're going, you might also claim the National Enquirer doesn't have gossip! Actually, I suppose its employees might claim that. If you think Wikipedia is free of gossip, then so be it.--Aschlafly 20:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Gossip is a very vague word, what is one (wo)man's gossip is another's hard facts! So before the term "gossip" gets thrown about too much we ought to have a concrete definition of it. Mathmo 01:09, 24 March 2007 (EDT)


I asked above for a definition of gossip so that the rules can be followed clearly. I have no interest in debating Wikipedia...it's irrelevant. But, I would like a definition of gossip if it is going to stay a commandment. Palmd001 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Bias

7. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts... - Do you allow conservative censorship of liberal facts? This isn't clear. --JamesK 18:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No, we don't.--Aschlafly 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I think that should be explicitly stated then. --JamesK 18:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean? Sounds like some kind of hippy, commie relativism to me! Facts are facts. --Zerba 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes JamesK. Conservative censorship is allowed, as evidenced by this page: Alger Hiss. The fact that the accuracy of the released Soviet documents is disputed, and that a key FBI witness committed perjury while testifying that a typewriter cannot be used for forgery is completely ignored in this account. --Charliemc86 17:09, 21 March 2007 (CST)
this is all sour grapes from a disgruntled former editor of wikipedia. it is not to be taken seriously. Ashlafly is simply a member of the radical right disguising himself, albeit poorly, as a conservative. Do not take him seriously. He is baised against anythnig that doesn't support his ideosyncratic agenda. 20:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Conservative facts? What is that supposed to mean?" I agree, what does it mean? How can a fact be of different political alignments? You can check it the definition. --trekie9001 16:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

They're special facts. Y'know, the ones that are so obviously true, they don't even need citations. Wikinterpreter

Neutral? Censorship?

"3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. "

This point conflicts with point one... A real encyclopedia doesn't avoid issues that may be considered "unsuitable". One example is Sex. One of the oldest and most respected encyclopaedias out there, Encyclopædia Britannica, has a page on Intercourse. What's wrong with a scientific article on something completely natural, something which is very much involved with Christianity? I really cannot understand.

I shall return. O2mcgovem 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

That is a very good point. The fact that the sex article has been censored on this site is a bit odd. There is no need to get into the depth that Wikipedia goes into about human sexualit, sex positions, etc. But some acknowledgment or treatment of the way that nearly all multi-cellular organisms come to be seems to be something that shoudl be included in anything claiming to be "encyclopedic".--Zerba 12:36, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

items 1,4 and 7 seem to be mutally exclusive

and are not applied to actual pages. if we're going to state these rules they should ve consistent and supportable. Godman 20:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  • I assume 7 is referring to Andrew's lectures (Economics Lectures, World History Lectures)? If so, perhaps Conservapedia may eventually have something like Wikinews' original reporting policy, which allows original work, as long as it's labeled as being authored by an identifiable person. (and Wikinews' policy would make point 7 invalid as well) --Interiot 21:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
it would lend much needed credibility to this project if editorials and opinion were labeled as such. As it is it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. not that it seems to matter here, as intellectual seems to be a bad word. Godman 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Name Change

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it "Differences from wikipedia" or "How Conservapedia is different from Wikipedia"? "Differences with wikipedia" sounds awkward. If you want to take a good idea from wikipedia, you might make a "What conservapedia is not" page.IMFromKathlene 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Neutral to the facts?

What facts are these that justify a daily bible comment on the front page?

Honestly, I have no problem with the Bible quote. It has nothing to do with any controversy about facts. It is simply a quotation that the founders of this site wish to share.Palmd001 18:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely what or what isn't a terrorist group group depends on the definintion used and the perspective of the definer.
If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.
What definition is being used here - and wouldn't that be an opinion likely to controvene no. 2?
Admittedly that only states that the opinions of journalists are unacceptable. Are other opinions acceptable? Though I can only assume they are also subject to authoritative support. Who is the authority on what or what isn't a terrorist group? It there also an authority on facts?
A real encyclopedia would attribute claims that a particular group is terrorist to those doing the claiming?
WhatIsG0ing0n 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Restrictions

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

In what way? how? This means nothing on it's own. --Cgday 11:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Users here have been unable to grasp wikipedia's copyright, so they've determined it is 'cumbersome' whereas conservapedia's apparent founder has said something like "anybody can copy our stuff until we object" . . . it's pretty clear, given the dishonest and unacademic tone of the rest of this site, how that should be parsed. More evidence that this site is a platform for radicals and zealots, dishonest ones at that, rather than actual conservatives or, heaven help us, Christians. I more than half suspect this site is some sort of joke intended to make average good hearted Christian-Americans look like fascists and nut-cases. But perhaps thats just because it is apparently run by misguided high school students.Godman 18:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Copyright differences

The page currently reads "By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material, and cannot copy your own material elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions." That's incorrect... Wikipedia contributors are required to license their contributions under the GFDL, but under the law, the contributor still owns the copyright to the work* and may license the contribution under other additional licenses. Wikipedia even encourages this sometimes. [3]

GFDL is just a normal license that is used outside of Wikipedia, and it has no clauses akin to "transfer the copyright ownership to the site I post it on". I can write a poem by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it on Geocities, but I'm still the copyright holder. Same goes with Wikipedia --Interiot 12:49, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I've clarified point one, and responded on Conservapedia talk:Copyright. Thanks.--Aschlafly 14:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you very much, the factual bits are correct now at least. And there are a number of people who criticize copyleft licenses for being "viral", so that sentiment isn't too far out of the mainstream (though I think personally think there are good reasons for some of the restrictions... it ensures that the community, rather than Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, will forever own and control the content... there have been unfortunate incidents in the past where a community contributes under the belief that their work will always be freely available, but it's later closed off and used only for commercial gain). --Interiot 19:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

stubs

12. We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stubs" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting stubs on entries.

In Wikipedia, a "stub" is a short article, like a Conservapedia:Very Short Article. In fact Conservapedia has a template called {{stub}} that puts a large box at the top of the article noting that it is a Very Short Article and placing it in Category:Articles needing major improvement. This category is still manageable here with less than 1000 articles in it. As Wikipedia is so much larger, the stub categories are further divided so that editors can find stub articles they have the interest or knowledge to expand. Wikipedia stub tags are a line or two of italic text at the bottom of an article (often with a small image next to them), less visually intrusive than the large blue box at the top of articles here.

This point should be either deleted or clarified to explain what difference is actually highlighted. Perhaps "Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top. Both markings invite readers to extend the article." --Scott 00:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • As you might have been noticing, there is more of a push on here to discourage their placement, in favor of short, factual and concise entries, over verbose and lenghty ones. Templates are most certainly not encouraged here, and when found on questionable articles, removed. I actually see the ability to place templates on articles restricted here, to Sysop's and above soon. --~ TK MyTalk 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia places stubs on almost anything that is short. But concise entries are better than the wordy, overly verbose entries that dominate Wikipedia. it seems that a high percentage of entries on Wikipedia have "stubs" placed on them. Who wants to be distracted by that? It's silly and, as TK says, we don't want them here.--Aschlafly 01:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Stub articles can serve a legitimate purpose if there are very few of them, to alert us of the real problems (i.e. when Germany was one paragraph long). I suspect that was the original intent. Obviously, this isn't happening. MountainDew 01:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I take the stub notices out whenever I see them now, unless truly deserved. Also, let's warn and, if necessary, block editors who are inserting lots of stub notices. Thanks and a good Easter to you, MountainDew!--Aschlafly 01:22, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
How about this? "12. Short Wikipedia articles are called "stubs" and are marked at the bottom of the article, very short Conservapedia articles are called "VSAs" and are marked by a blue box at the top, but these markings are discouraged. Both markings invite readers to extend the article, however a typical "complete" Conservapedia article is generally much shorter than a "complete" Wikipedia article." --Scott 01:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I'm not that long out of College to remember what a pain it was, those overly long, verbose entries, when trying to fact-check, and research! Scott, I agree, we could site the two examples, and play-up our penchant for concise over wordy articles, for the sake of wordiness. --~ TK MyTalk 02:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Neither website (nor a paper encyclopaedia) is an appropriate source for tertiary-level research. Most of Wikipedia's Good and Featured articles have extensive reference lists which might be useful, but you're still relying on someone else's literature search with no idea if it's complete. Wikipedia tends to cite online and free (as in beer) articles rather than paper or paid sources as they are more accessible to the majority of editors. That is also a bias problem for serious research, and I haven't noticed a significant difference in that area at Conservapedia, which in general has a lot less references. World Book Encyclopaedia's short/concise articles give a quick and simple overview. Encyclopaedia Britannica has longer articles that give a fair amount of detail, like Wikipedia. True research means go and find your own sources. (Disclaimer: I graduated before the Internet existed). Should we have a guideline here that articles are aimed for the attention span and reading level of a 12-year old (i.e. like World Book)? --Scott 02:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • That is kind of snobbish, no? --~ TK MyTalk 03:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
    • My last sentence? Possibly, but Aschlafly can move the number up or down, a guideline like that would help to clarify vague terms like "concise", "family-friendly" etc. The problem with Conservapedia is that it is trying to be too many things - an alternative to Wikipedia that presents items from a conservative POV instead of a Neutral POV should aim to carry informative and deep articles on the main items where conservatives differ from both liberals and moderates. However many of these articles are censored or hijacked due to the second goal of being a family-friendly and safe resource for home-schooled children. This goal is hard because family-friendly for an eight-year-old is different to family-friendly for a sixteen-year old. Articles on subjects like sex and families need to present different stuff, or at least one group will be looking elsewhere for information. The latest idea is that Conservapedia might be a think tank. Yet another goal, with yet another set of competing criteria to do it well. If these three or four goals were in separate websites or separate namespaces each linked from the front page, editors and readers could choose which they want to be involved in, and perhaps some of the complaints about sysop control would be addressed by people recognising different rules in different spaces. --Scott 05:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think "distracting stubs" meant that placing the {{stub}} template was presenting a distraction. Both Mr. Schafly and User:Conservative IIRC have criticized its application. No one is objecting to well-written articles that simply happen to be short.

  • A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. [William Strunk, Jr.] http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/02-TeachingResources/readingwriting/05c-essy.htm

Wikipedia suffers from stylistic strictures. It has a prejudice against concise writing and favors "blather" over cohesion. All articles must be created by a process of accretion, as if 100 monkeys at a typewriter could eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. (MUST I point out this use of hyperbole? That link being a red one, I guess I must. ;-)

At some future date, I may write an article on military communications which will expose the weaknesses of traditional command and control ideas, based on the insights of retired Marine Corps General Paul van Riper. Here's a taste:

  • "We would not get caught up in any of these mechanistic processes. We would use the wisdom, the experience, and the good judgment of the people we had." (Page 118 of Malcolm Gladwell's blink.)

Van Riper's Red Team beat the Pentagon's best and brightest in a military exercise called the Millennium Challenge. --Ed Poor 07:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, I suspect you are right what is intended by point 12. It is not what it says. I have made two attempts in this talk page section to propose rephrased sentences that I think say what is meant. I'm not allowed to edit the actual page, so can only discuss proposed changes here, leading to interesting tangents if no sysop actually picks up the changes quickly. The "wiki way" (not just Wikipedia) is that I would make a change, and others would improve it in the page itself and eventually we would reach an improved consensus. --Scott 07:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. I didn't write item #12.
  2. You can ask the protecting sysop to unprotect the article. --Ed Poor 07:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Scott, I don't think the site owners care about the "wiki way" very much, neither do I, for a Conservapedia, that gives full credit to Conservative values, and Christian thinking. Consensus reached with those who don't think too highly of non-PC thoughts, and Conservative values isn't consensus, but watering down, IMO. How could it be otherwise? --~ TK MyTalk 07:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
This is verging away from stubs and into a discussion of the relative merits of conservatism and liberalism. Continuing on this tangent, I will agree with Terry and run the ball a bit further.
Conservatives want to preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have. This doesn't mean their minds are closed to new ideas which are also good. We're not sending letters by pony express here but using a wiki on the Internet. Just because Al Gore invented it, doesn't mean it's evil <wink>.
I just think that C's are less close-minded than L's. Read Closing of the American Mind for a lengthy essay which argues that liberal "open-mindedness" actually leads to mental impoverishment and destruction. Do Liberals consciously desire poverty and chaos? Hardly. But the problem remains unsolved. --Ed Poor 08:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
The protecting sysop has responded in this thread, but did not change the article, or unprotect it. This appears to be the usual Conservapedia attitude to "...preserve what is good, i.e., what we already have." At least I haven't been reverted for deleting information about Tanzania from Tonga or Laos from Fiji. --Scott 09:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Tonga? Laos? *head is spinning --~ TK MyTalk 12:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
    • A couple of editors a month ago appear to have had a very spotty understanding of world geography, and got several countries mixed up. I removed material from articles it was not about. --Scott 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Scott, I'm not sure what you want me to respond to. We discourage defacing concise articles here with ugly "stub" banners. Here we encourage conciseness. At Wikipedia, the culture seems to think more words are better. Not so.
Also, we favor concise rules. We're not going to have thousands and thousands of words about rules here. God covered all of life with Ten Commandments, and many of them were just a few words long. We're going to have fewer here. If you like bureaucracy, then you might prefer Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Ed has now corrected the most obvious problem with the point - thanks. The issue appeared to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. The new version is close enough I wouldn't have commented. I have no problem with conciseness, but short-and-wrong is not as good as long-enough-and-right. I continue to contribute to Wikipedia as well, and do not come here with the chip on my shoulder that everything about Wikipedia is wrong, unlike some people here. If we are to criticise Wikipedia, the criticism should be fair and true. Both stubs and VSAs allow a project to extend its breadth quickly, and hopefully others will come behind to increase the depth of coverage. --Scott 18:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

User names?

Yep, names like "Conservative", "CoulterMan", etc., aren't at all like those mentioned. Are you guys aware that "Nearly Headless Nick" is the name of a character from a book? --Hacker(Write some code) 14:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)