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.
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. There are many complete articles on science-related topics, for example.
- It is more complete.
- It is easier to upload photos.
- There is a bigger drive for complete and high-quality articles.
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 arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral".
- Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
- Arguments in many places can be very petty.
- Many (though not all) articles about popular culture are rather useless.
Potassium permanganate is a strong oxidizing agent and cannot reduce nitrate to ammonia. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) does not contain any nitrate or lithium. Lithium nitrate, an oxidizing agent, cannot reduce water to hydrogen.
Benefits of Conservapedia
- There is much less vandalism here.
- It has more family-friendly content.
- It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints in some articles 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.
- Almost all of the admins have a similar viewpoint, so wheelwarring is nonexistant.
- More friendly debates are here. Opinions are welcome there.
Disadvantages of Conservapedia
- Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.
- 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.
- There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.
- Jimbo Wales influences everyone with his atheistic, liberal viewpoint; Andy Schlafly influences everyone with his religious, conservative viewpoint.
- POV debates are existent in both.
- A certain level of arbitrariness is present in the blocks of some people who do not blatantly violate the Commandments. (I do not have any names to name.)
- They both claim to be high quality.