[Spktyr]

Hmmmm.

Not the way to go. It should present itself as a "fair and unbiased" alternative to Wikipedia.

[Enosh]

Walter Cronkite killed "fair and unbiased."

[Always Right]

Not the way to go. It should present itself as a "fair and unbiased" alternative to Wikipedia.

Yep and it should try to accomplish that. A straight-shooting site would be best and far better than the status quo.

[FairOpinion]

"It should present itself as a "fair and unbiased" alternative to Wikipedia."

I agree -- maybe there is room for a THIRD Wikipadia. FoxNews shoudl sponsor it.

FAIRIPEDIA.

[streetpreacher]

Differences with Wikipedia
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

1. We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.

2. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.

3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children.

4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.

5. We have less restrictions on the reuse of our material than Wikipedia does.

6. We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts, while Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public are free to censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.

7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.