Talk:Conservapedia: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
imported>John Stephenson (Removed category, though I disagree) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
This obviously is not a Religion Workgroup article. What do religious scholars know about it? Conservapedia is politically slanted, first and foremost. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT) | This obviously is not a Religion Workgroup article. What do religious scholars know about it? Conservapedia is politically slanted, first and foremost. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I have removed <nowiki>[[Category: Religion Workgroup]]</nowiki> given this criticism; however, I'd say it is peripherally to do with that group because of the religious aspect of Conservapedia. Apart from the creationism stuff, they do have a Bible quote-of-the-day on the main page. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 03:38, 28 July 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 02:38, 28 July 2007
Workgroup category or categories | Topic Informant Workgroup, Computers Workgroup, Politics Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories] |
Article status | Stub: no more than a few sentences |
Underlinked article? | No |
Basic cleanup done? | Yes |
Checklist last edited by | John Stephenson 23:37, 27 July 2007 (CDT) |
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.
Original research?
Do you think my comparison of the block lists for Wikipedia, Citizendium and Conservapedia constitute original research? I'm not sure. If so, delete or modify. John Stephenson 23:36, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
Article count
The real question isn't how many articles there are, but what the total word count is, and how many of words are garbage! --Larry Sanger 00:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
This obviously is not a Religion Workgroup article. What do religious scholars know about it? Conservapedia is politically slanted, first and foremost. --Larry Sanger 00:05, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
- I have removed [[Category: Religion Workgroup]] given this criticism; however, I'd say it is peripherally to do with that group because of the religious aspect of Conservapedia. Apart from the creationism stuff, they do have a Bible quote-of-the-day on the main page. John Stephenson 03:38, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Categories:
- Topic Informant Category Check
- General Category Check
- Computers Category Check
- Politics Category Check
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Topic Informant Advanced Articles
- Topic Informant Nonstub Articles
- Topic Informant Internal Articles
- Computers Advanced Articles
- Computers Nonstub Articles
- Computers Internal Articles
- Politics Advanced Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles
- Developed Articles
- Topic Informant Developed Articles
- Computers Developed Articles
- Politics Developed Articles
- Developing Articles
- Topic Informant Developing Articles
- Computers Developing Articles
- Politics Developing Articles
- Stub Articles
- Topic Informant Stub Articles
- Computers Stub Articles
- Politics Stub Articles
- External Articles
- Topic Informant External Articles
- Computers External Articles
- Politics External Articles
- Topic Informant Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Computers Underlinked Articles
- Politics Underlinked Articles
- Topic Informant Cleanup
- General Cleanup
- Computers Cleanup
- Politics Cleanup