Essay:Relative Quality of Conservapedia, Wikipedia and RationalWiki
From RationalWiki
This essay is an original work by User:Totnesmartin. Please comment only on the talk page.
'For the original version of this idea, please go here. Concept and scoring method created by Aaron Sherman.
To create an objective comparison of online wiki-based encyclopedias, a points system can be used to "score" selected articles. This page is an attempt at following Aaron Sherman's of comparing Conservapedia and Wikipedia. I'm also going to chuck in a few other similar ones, such as Creationwiki and Tinwiki.
Contents |
[edit] Points
1 point for:
- External references, either online or printed material, excluding blogs and personal pages (eg facebook pages)
- An introduction with links.
- Specific references for particular statements.
- Specific references in every section.
- At least two categories (not counting automatically-generated categories)
1 point deducted for:
- "citation needed" tags, other bias templates, pages protected from editing.
- Articles consisting of fewer than 50 words.
- Copies of public domain material.
Pages not counted:
- Administrative (WP), debate (CP), fun (RW) and similar pages. basically, just the facts, ma'am.
[edit] 11 November 2007
[edit] Wikipedia
- Jollydora 0
- Kiss Hands 1
- Multipath interference 1
- Portuguese Indian rúpia 3 (only just breaks 50-word barrier!)
- Big Brother Australia 2007 highlights
minus 872563723 just on general principles2
TOTAL: 7
[edit] Conservapedia
- Mark Steinbach 1
- Susan Collins 1
- Saudi Arabia 1 (cut-and-paste job)
- contraception 1 (over half is quotation)
- Kirchoff's voltage law 0 (there seem to be references, but you can't see them without logging in or registering - points not given)
TOTAL: 4
[edit] RationalWiki
- Institute for Creation Research 2
- Child abuse 1
- Gay agenda 1
- Reality
whatever one of those is1 - James Taylor 1
TOTAL: 6
[edit] CreationWiki
TOTAL: 2
[edit] TinWiki
TOTAL: 6
