User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast
Interesting commentary, but it might prioritize the issues. How about this:
Wikipedia: sometimes the worst of the public.
Conservapedia: the best of the public.
Wikipedia: pretending to be unbiased when it isn't.
Conservapedia: says what it is, and doesn't try to fool anyone.
Wikipedia: a poor educational resource.
Conservapedia: a superb educational resource.
Wikipedia: like the National Enquirer, and visitors aren't enriched by the experience.
Conservapedia: like the Bible, and visitors are enriched by the experience.--Andy Schlafly 18:34, 17 November 2010 (EST)
- Mobocracy? I see admins trying to enforce the "NPOV". The policies do not change all the time, unlike a mobocracy. They have a few bad policies and make a whole lot of bad decisions from them.
- This might seem like a "meritocracy", but I do not see many people here. Something here repels many people--I really don't know what. Both Wikipedia and Conservapedia attract good editors--but Wikipedia also attracts the low-moral people. Conservapedia seems to chop off the low-moral people a little too high.
- Yes, I know that many times this is at Wikipedia.
- The editors here are better than the editors over there, but something repels many people away who may have valuable contributions.
- Neutral Point of View is arbitrarily set. It seems unbiased to a far-left viewer, but not to a conservative viewer. In my opinion, it is moderately liberal. Comparing it to this definitely makes it seem biased.
- It is described quite accurately here. The title defines the encyclopedia quite perfectly.
- I disagree here. I will list some facts that are in my immediate knowledge below.
- This is an educational resource but the chemistry areas do not seem very complete.
- I was mentally enriched by Wikipedia, a "wolf in wolf's clothing".
- I also saw some things here but, as I said before, morals are mixed with opinions. I also want to make sure I don't run into any "wolves in sheep's clothing". --LK 10:06, 18 November 2010 (EST)
- Tin(II) oxide is a blue-black solid that burns in air to make tin(IV) oxide. The (II) means that two electrons are taken from the tin ion. The (IV) means that four electrons are taken from the tin ion. There is an older system that would call them stannous oxide and stannic oxide.
- Heating of potassium hydroxide, potassium nitrate, and manganese dioxide will make green potassium manganate, which disproportionates in a basic? solution to make potassium permanganate and manganese dioxide.
- Tin(II) oxide hydrate is white, and it can be made by reacting tin(II) chloride with sodium hydroxide.
- Tin(II) chloride can be oxidized to tin(IV) chloride when in air for too long. Tin(II) sulfate cannot be oxidized, making it a convenient source of tin(II) ions.
- Iron(II) hydroxide is a dark green solid that can be made by reacting iron(II) chloride with sodium or ammonium hydroxide. It easily oxidizes to iron(III) oxide.
- Iron(II) oxidizes much more easily in a basic solution than an acidic solution. Iron(II) sulfate is greenish and was known as green vitriol.
- Copper can be dissolved by electrolysis in water to make copper(II) hydroxide, which can be dissolved in acids to make various copper(II) salts.
- Chromates are yellow, and dichromates are red. The red dichromates are reduced by alcohol to green chromium(III). This reaction was used in old alcohol breath analyzers.
- The chromates and dichromates are strong oxidizing agents in acidic solution.
- Dilute nitric acid makes nitric oxide when it reacts with copper; concentrated nitric acid makes nitrogen dioxide.
And much more.