Conservapedia:AFD Major bias in conservapedia

Major bias in conservapedia

Being self-aware of a site's problems can be useful... Examples at Wikipedia include Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing and Wikipedia:Problems with Wikipedia. However, those stuck around because they offer some constructive criticism, and are written as a cohesive summary by very experienced users who understand some of Wikipedia's broader, more subtle problems.

This page, however, is likely to become a drive-by troll magnet for people who are new to the site. Moreover, most locked pages have an unlocked talk page where specific concerns can be addressed, and, failing that, User talk:Aschlafly seems to be a popular place to list complaints. --Interiot 10:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. This will generate more heat than light. If there are no coherent objections by the time I'm logging off for the day, I'll go ahead and delete it. Tsumetai 10:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Conditional Delete As above, it is a troll magnet. But we do need a page devoted to hashing out disputes that are not page specific; otherwise it either ends up on the Abuse page or on Aschlafly's talk page. I suggest a less pejorative name, "Conservapdia: Discussion" with a line denoting that it is for discussions that are not strictly abuse but merely differences in POV's.

Putting it under Discussion would ensure that things that are in contention are being talked about, having it as a listing in the main talk page would only invite "how's the weather?" posts. There are problems here and they need to be aired out otherwise we're all going to lose a great project. MOO --Cracker^talk 10:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep. NPOV a little, move to the Conservapedia: namespace, perhaps rename, and it will be a usefully self-aware page. Geekman314^{(contact me)} 22:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Keep - legitimate article, I'd say include in the article namespace as per examples of bias in wikipedia. Babygotbook 03:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)