Talk:Encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Nuke. Тytalk 19:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- disagree. Man you people are way too fast for your own good at this. Conservapedia claims to be an "encyclopedia" so I fail to see why this is not on topic. An entry on what a lava lamp is, for example, I'd understand your POV. RatMaster háblame 19:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- So what about Conservapedia? This isn't a wiki about Conservapedia. Тytalk 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, and I'm the king of England. 76.180.192.15 (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- While I'm all in favour of deCPing mainspace, I don't think it should be ignored. When it started CP was intended to be a "non liberal" version of Wikipedia, I think its subsequent performance has demonstrated the difficulty/impossibility of doing that.
- I think that this subject could be amplified - history is what's written down - it'd be interesting to compare encyclpædias through the ages/across countries to discern bias. Pippa (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I"m already pissy about stubs, having been chastised for making one - grrr... That said, i think the fact that this is a one liner, is more the reason people say it's not "on topic". If you had, for example, made a quality article about encyclopedias, maybe addressing how biased they can be (from online ones with stated bias, to actual printed ones with academic shortcomings and errors), if you wanted to address how often they are wrong, if you wanted to address how easily on-line open source ones are vandalized -- that would all be "on mission". but what you did was put a sentence out there, with nothing at all about the direction you want to go-- and that means someone else has to finish it. I dont' like finishing other people's work. I like adding to their work... offering different points of view, learning new things.
En attendant Godot 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- I"m already pissy about stubs, having been chastised for making one - grrr... That said, i think the fact that this is a one liner, is more the reason people say it's not "on topic". If you had, for example, made a quality article about encyclopedias, maybe addressing how biased they can be (from online ones with stated bias, to actual printed ones with academic shortcomings and errors), if you wanted to address how often they are wrong, if you wanted to address how easily on-line open source ones are vandalized -- that would all be "on mission". but what you did was put a sentence out there, with nothing at all about the direction you want to go-- and that means someone else has to finish it. I dont' like finishing other people's work. I like adding to their work... offering different points of view, learning new things.
- So what about Conservapedia? This isn't a wiki about Conservapedia. Тytalk 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Nuke. Soon. Off-mission orphan stub. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, Ty. I wasn't really clear. My post was to the original author about why it's being deleted, or "waht he did wrong". I'm very fine with removing stubs. Cause i don't want to finish something so "nothing".En attendant Godot 00:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, Ty. I wasn't really clear. My post was to the original author about why it's being deleted, or "waht he did wrong". I'm very fine with removing stubs. Cause i don't want to finish something so "nothing".