Difference between revisions of "User:LanthanumK/Wikipedia contrast"
From Conservapedia
LanthanumK (Talk | contribs) (→Hoax) |
LanthanumK (Talk | contribs) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia. | This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between ''English'' Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Summary: Both Wikipedia and Conservapedia have certain benefits and downfalls. I hope that people on this site can use this information to improve this sight. | ||
==Benefits of Wikipedia== | ==Benefits of Wikipedia== | ||
*It is easier to edit articles as a new user. | *It is easier to edit articles as a new user. | ||
| − | *It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias. | + | *It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias. There are many complete articles on science-related topics, for example. |
*It is more complete. | *It is more complete. | ||
*It is easier to upload photos. | *It is easier to upload photos. | ||
| + | *There is a bigger drive for complete and high-quality articles. | ||
==Disadvantages of Wikipedia== | ==Disadvantages of Wikipedia== | ||
| − | *It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout | + | *It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian". |
*There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here. | *There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here. | ||
| − | *Neutral Point of View is | + | *Neutral Point of View is arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral". |
*Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates. | *Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates. | ||
*Arguments in many places can be very petty. | *Arguments in many places can be very petty. | ||
| + | *Many (though not all) articles about popular culture are rather useless. | ||
===Hoax=== | ===Hoax=== | ||
| Line 20: | Line 24: | ||
*There is much less vandalism here. | *There is much less vandalism here. | ||
*It has more family-friendly content. | *It has more family-friendly content. | ||
| − | *It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints which is more NPOV than Wikipedia. | + | *It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints in some articles which is more NPOV than Wikipedia. |
*Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent. | *Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent. | ||
| + | *Almost all of the admins have a similar viewpoint, so wheelwarring is nonexistant. | ||
| + | *More friendly debates are here. Opinions are welcome there. | ||
| + | *The rules here are much more clear and straight. | ||
==Disadvantages of Conservapedia== | ==Disadvantages of Conservapedia== | ||
| − | *Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. | + | *Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high. |
*A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too. | *A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too. | ||
*It is less complete. | *It is less complete. | ||
*It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal). | *It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal). | ||
*It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users. | *It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users. | ||
| + | *There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant. | ||
| + | *It is not suitable for drastic growth due to the schisms that would be formed if the growth ensued. | ||
===Hoax=== | ===Hoax=== | ||
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.] | [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Transition_metal&diff=prev&oldid=330929 Transition metals are not strong oxidizing agents; some are moderately strong reducing agents while others are weak reducing agents.] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Similarities== | ||
| + | *Jimbo Wales influences everyone with his atheistic, liberal viewpoint; Andy Schlafly influences everyone with his religious, conservative viewpoint. | ||
| + | *POV debates are existent in both. | ||
| + | *A certain level of arbitrariness is present in the blocks of some people who do not blatantly violate the Commandments. (I do not have any names to name.) | ||
| + | *They both claim to be high quality but aren't as high as they claim. | ||
Latest revision as of 18:10, November 18, 2010
This is a page of comparisons and contrasts between English Wikipedia and Conservapedia. As I am a user on both sites, I can see the issues with both. This does not include Simple English Wikipedia.
Summary: Both Wikipedia and Conservapedia have certain benefits and downfalls. I hope that people on this site can use this information to improve this sight.
Contents
Benefits of Wikipedia
- It is easier to edit articles as a new user.
- It is not so politically-oriented. It has a slight liberal bias while this site has a strongly conservative bias. There are many complete articles on science-related topics, for example.
- It is more complete.
- It is easier to upload photos.
- There is a bigger drive for complete and high-quality articles.
Disadvantages of Wikipedia
- It is not censored, showing bad pictures and bad language. One of the biggest users of profanity is a self-professed "devout Christian".
- There is much more vandalism than at Conservapedia. Hoaxes are relatively abundant, although there are not many less hoaxes over here.
- Neutral Point of View is arbitrary and a few editors make what they believe "neutral".
- Assume Good Faith is used as a hammer to beat people over the head in debates.
- Arguments in many places can be very petty.
- Many (though not all) articles about popular culture are rather useless.
Hoax
Benefits of Conservapedia
- There is much less vandalism here.
- It has more family-friendly content.
- It has both conservative and liberal viewpoints in some articles which is more NPOV than Wikipedia.
- Petty debates over Manual of Style changes or what constitutes medical advice or whether people should notify others of grammatical errors in posts are nonexistent.
- Almost all of the admins have a similar viewpoint, so wheelwarring is nonexistant.
- More friendly debates are here. Opinions are welcome there.
- The rules here are much more clear and straight.
Disadvantages of Conservapedia
- Editing for new users and IP's is restricted. The bar for entrance is set a little too high.
- A few hoaxes exist, although Wikipedia has hoaxes too.
- It is less complete.
- It mixes up morals (principles of right and wrong) with opinions (conservative v. liberal).
- It is more difficult to upload photos for legitimate users.
- There are many negative things said here about Wikipedia. Some are not true, while others are so insignificant.
- It is not suitable for drastic growth due to the schisms that would be formed if the growth ensued.
Hoax
Similarities
- Jimbo Wales influences everyone with his atheistic, liberal viewpoint; Andy Schlafly influences everyone with his religious, conservative viewpoint.
- POV debates are existent in both.
- A certain level of arbitrariness is present in the blocks of some people who do not blatantly violate the Commandments. (I do not have any names to name.)
- They both claim to be high quality but aren't as high as they claim.
