User talk:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Interesting commentary, but it might prioritize the issues. How about this:

Wikipedia: mobocracy.
Conservapedia: meritocracy.

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. A mobocracy is a government of the mob--whatever the people want. Wikipedia has what a few admins and Jimbo Wales wants and forces that on everyone else, whether it is right or wrong (most of it is bad).
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. Bad editors run much of the site.
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, but definitely not any deeper than chemical compounds and elements. Wikpiedia is a "wolf in wolf's clothing".
I also saw some things here but, as I said before, morals are mixed with opinions. I think that there are more important things like morals to tell the world about, not conservative policies. I also want to make sure I don't run into any "wolves in sheep's clothing" here so I am careful with editors. --LK 10:06, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Point 1: Many things on Wikipedia are handled by the mobocracy, such as its biased deletion of pages. It's silly to pretend otherwise. Nothing like that happens on Conservapedia, which is a meritocracy.
I see that some pages are deleted, but I haven't gotten into any debates over politics-related articles yet. --LK 15:43, 19 November 2010 (EST)
Point 2: I think you agree with the essence of this point.
Point 3: You sdmit that Wikipedia "is moderately liberal." But why won't Wikipedia that? You agree that Conservapedia tells visitors up-front what it is.
From a liberal POV, it is rather conservative.
Point 4: You say you've learned things in chemistry from Wikipedia. Fine, but Wikipedia has no contemporary lectures with assignments and tests, grades no homework, and is typically not concise as required for education. We are all those things, and more.
Hmm... I don't know how much I can learn about science here. After a year of chemistry and the reading of just about every inorganic chemical compound article on Wikipedia, there is not much left more me to learn.
Point 5: Wikipedia doesn't wear "wolf's clothing." Rather, it pretends to be a neutral encyclopedia when in fact it features National Enquirer-like gossip, absurdly biased edits for the benefit of liberal goals, and much non-educational material.--Andy Schlafly 20:55, 18 November 2010 (EST)
It is neutral in its own right. As I said earlier, neutrality is arbitrary and is enforced by what Jimbo and a few admins decide.
  • 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.

My answers for your "disavantages" topic

It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools. (Ecclesiastes 7:5)

Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.

We want good, honest people to become editors on the site. That is a bar which everyone has to meet, and it's not that difficult.

A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.

People come into both sites and deliberately create false articles. That's called lying, and the people responsible get removed.

It is less complete.

We have less people, and most of the new ones seem to want to get involved with politics rather than helping to create new articles, or add to existing articles...such as the subject of chemistry, for example.

It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).

A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. (Ecclesiastes 10:2). You have seen what the left has done in this country; you've seen what it has done to Wikipedia. That is not an "opinion" that you could reduce it to; that is a fact. There's a major difference between what's right and what's wrong, and the verse from Ecclesiastes says it all in a nutshell. We are not going to hear the songs of fools in this site.

It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.

Conservapedia is a meritocracy; you have to earn the privilege via your edits.

There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.

We highlight the wrongs of Wikipedia in hope that some over there would get the common sense to make corrections.

It is not suitable for drastic growth due to the schisms that would be formed if the growth ensued.

It is very suitable for drastic growth, despite alleged schisms...which is just an opinion, anyway.

If you please, LanthanumK, identify what is specifically wrong here, and make concrete suggestions for improvement. Karajou 11:57, 18 November 2010 (EST)

First of all, there is a difference between a foolish decision and a sin. I believe that socialism is a foolish decision, while lying is a sin.
Yes, I understand that you want good people, but I still think that the bar is set too high. It chases many people away.
Some may be genuinely misled, although others are lying.
It is still a problem with the site, and you admins may or may not want to fix it.
It is an opinion. There is a political conservative, which tries to keep countries going in a good direction, and there is a religious conservative, which tries to follow the Bible.
I think that the upload file should be granted to new users but revoked after one bad upload.
The wrongs of Wikipedia? Photo bias ain't what I consider wrong.
I could see many problems that will happen.
In conclusion: This page shows that no encyclopedia is perfect. It is very difficult to get a balance between attracting new users and getting too much vandalism.
I know that this is disorganized. I may create something more organized later. --LK 13:04, 18 November 2010 (EST)
Note: This is just my point of view. I do not think that Conservapedia is bad because it does not allow you to upload, but I think that it is overly cautious. --LK 13:07, 18 November 2010 (EST)
About the schism deal... What happens when you get a liberal admin? Is there a rule that all admins have to be politically conservative? What happens when many liberal editors flood in and start changing articles? I doubt that growth will be conservatives-only. --LK 13:17, 18 November 2010 (EST)
We've had liberal Admins and have never had a rule against it.--Andy Schlafly 21:00, 18 November 2010 (EST)

What someone else said

I'm not sure I can thoroughly approve of Conservapedia. As you said, it seems to be rather more interested in politics than truthfulness and blending wiseness with purity. Even its name - "Conservapedia" not "Christpedia" - makes me slightly worried. In fact, Conservapedia often gives Christians a bad name. Even some Christians dislike it. I tried reading some of its criticisms on Wikipedia, and I was rather disappointed. Some parts of Wikipedia, as you know, I don't agree with - like its policy about being completely uncensored, or speaking "neutrally" about certain sins - but most of the criticisms on there were biased and based more on prejudice than fact, and illogically worded. I felt myself blush for it when I heard Wikipedians laughing scornfully at it, and what was worse, the laughter had justice in it. I'm not quite comfortable in my mind with Conservapedia, and I wish there was a better and more trustworthy Christian encyclopedia out there. *sighs* There are so few things in the world that are wholly trustworthy these days.

LK 15:57, 19 November 2010 (EST)