Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Ask questions"
Brian Wilson (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi! Leave any questions you have for us here. | Hi! Leave any questions you have for us here. | ||
| − | + | === Bias === | |
| − | My real question is, why will this be | + | If wikipedia is "liberal biased" I assume it would be because that's the way the world is biased because the people who write for it are not censored unless it is blatantly wrong. I came to this site and thought that as the homepage calls it "more accurate" info. Unfortunately, I seemed to have stumbled on less accurate information. Note, that some articles leave out anything that doesn't have to do with a specific biased message. (Example: the abortion article doesn't even explain what it is, just why it's bad.) |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | My real question is, why will this be deleted, instead of talked about and addressed on your site? | |
| − | :Not censored? Please see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight&diff=prev&oldid=85523670#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F] Recently when an editor pointed out "Dominionism", as defined by Wikipedia is "a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism", didn't apply to Paul Weyrich because he is Roman Catholic, he nonetheless | + | |
| + | :Not censored? Please see this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight&diff=prev&oldid=85523670#Question:_Why_is_Leftism_NPOV.3F] Recently when an editor pointed out "Dominionism", as defined by Wikipedia is "a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism", didn't apply to Paul Weyrich because he is Roman Catholic, he nonetheless received a community ban so the pejoratives aimed at Paul Weyrich will stick. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Scope === | ||
What is the proposed scope of Conservapedia? You currently have articles on History, Economics, Science, and Law. Do you intend to expand this list in future?--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | What is the proposed scope of Conservapedia? You currently have articles on History, Economics, Science, and Law. Do you intend to expand this list in future?--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === Parochial language commandment === | ||
| + | |||
| + | I just reflexively corrected (at least) 5 spelling errors in the above paragraphs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I am curious why the American version of spellings is considered so important that it is a "commandment" rather than simply an editorial policy? | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think it is acceptable for you to pick and use any English dialect you wish as a policy, and American English is one of the more popular ones, but I think it capricious that you would ban otherwise valuable contributions from someone for using their own. Simply edit the articles for spelling as you see fit, as I did above. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Brian Wilson|Brian Wilson]] 20:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:30, March 12, 2007
Hi! Leave any questions you have for us here.
Bias
If wikipedia is "liberal biased" I assume it would be because that's the way the world is biased because the people who write for it are not censored unless it is blatantly wrong. I came to this site and thought that as the homepage calls it "more accurate" info. Unfortunately, I seemed to have stumbled on less accurate information. Note, that some articles leave out anything that doesn't have to do with a specific biased message. (Example: the abortion article doesn't even explain what it is, just why it's bad.)
My real question is, why will this be deleted, instead of talked about and addressed on your site?
- Not censored? Please see this [1] Recently when an editor pointed out "Dominionism", as defined by Wikipedia is "a trend in Protestant Christian evangelicalism", didn't apply to Paul Weyrich because he is Roman Catholic, he nonetheless received a community ban so the pejoratives aimed at Paul Weyrich will stick. RobS 14:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Scope
What is the proposed scope of Conservapedia? You currently have articles on History, Economics, Science, and Law. Do you intend to expand this list in future?--Smalltownhick 20:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Parochial language commandment
I just reflexively corrected (at least) 5 spelling errors in the above paragraphs.
I am curious why the American version of spellings is considered so important that it is a "commandment" rather than simply an editorial policy?
I think it is acceptable for you to pick and use any English dialect you wish as a policy, and American English is one of the more popular ones, but I think it capricious that you would ban otherwise valuable contributions from someone for using their own. Simply edit the articles for spelling as you see fit, as I did above.
Brian Wilson 20:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)