Difference between revisions of "Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?"
Chrysogonus (talk | contribs) |
Chrysogonus (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT) | ::Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|this]], or [[exotheology|this]], or his contributions [[Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?|here]]. When I first read the [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|first]] of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it ''was'' a liberal satire. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT) | + | I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|this]], or [[exotheology|this]], or his contributions [[Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?|here]]. When I first read the [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|first]] of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it ''was'' a liberal satire. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 19:32, April 17, 2007
Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them. Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered.Rebiu 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I disagree. I see several articles about people who never existed, but sound like they might have. Case in point, all the Spanish profanity on the Cambodia page that sat there for over a month until I decided to let everyone in on the joke. Czolgolz 13:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- how does Wikipedia do it?Jaques 13:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Wikipedia has thousands of times more users...and hence is much more likely to notice factual errors. Conservapdia has a small (as of now) user base, and hence, articles may go weeks, or even months without anyone noticing incorrect dates, spellings, facts, and blatant fabrications. Czolgolz 13:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
- Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.Jaques 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like this, or this, or his contributions here. When I first read the first of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it was a liberal satire. Chrysogonus 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)