Difference between revisions of "User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast"
From Conservapedia
LanthanumK (Talk | contribs) (→Hoax) |
LanthanumK (Talk | contribs) m (→Disadvantages of Wikipedia) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Disadvantages of Wikipedia== | ==Disadvantages of Wikipedia== | ||
| − | *It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout | + | *It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian". |
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here. | *There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here. | ||
*Neutral Point of View is used to push consensus by a few politically-oriented editors. | *Neutral Point of View is used to push consensus by a few politically-oriented editors. | ||
Revision as of 15:04, November 18, 2010
This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between English Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.
Contents
Benefits of Wikipedia
- It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
- It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias.
- It is more complete.
- It is easier to upload photos.
Disadvantages of Wikipedia
- It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
- There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
- Neutral Point of View is used to push consensus by a few politically-oriented editors.
- Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
- Arguments in many places can be very petty.
Hoax
Benefits of Conservapedia
- There is much less vandalism here.
- It has more family-friendly content.
- It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
- Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.
Disadvantages of Conservapedia
- Editing for new users and IP's is restricted.
- A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
- It is less complete.
- It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
- It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.
