markg wrote:Just because one Conservapedia article is lacking certainly does not mean all of them are lacking.
You're right, it doesn't: the reason they are
all biased and inaccurate is that their guidelines for citation of sources
- which are THE basis on which to judge any encyclopaedia - allow for partisan sources of information, "provided they have a record of telling the truth". Whose
"truth", exactly? It's totally subjective. I can set up a website and tell people the sky is green, if someone wants to reference me on Conservapedia all they must do is claim to be taken in by my babble and it's considered a legit reference.
Contrast this with Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines
, which stress that:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
... such as (and they go on to list them as you can see) peer-reviewed journals, government websites, textbooks and the mainstream media - i.e. NOT joe soap's ego-blog!
is the reason conservapedia is a sham. This
is why precisely NOTHING that appears on that website is encyclopaedic. And by the way, you might ask why - for example - pro-evolutionists ("normals", as I call them) don't just go on and register on Conservapedia (yeah, they require registration btw, they know they'd have too much covering up to do otherwise) and start inserting evidence in support of evolution, and the answer is that people do
and have done this; what happens is that the material is deleted and their account removed within hours. If you like, I can set one up and keep all records to demonstrate?