User talk:Petrafan007

Haa! Welcome to the page.

I noticed, too, some of the biases of editors having a predilection for using lots of editor scrutiny on statements that were not pro-Darwinian. My friend has an easier time writing his dissertation than I did with a single paragraph on Wikipedia. I must have sources. I must have multiple sources for a paragraph. I must have reknowned sources. I must have reknowned sources who would take the time to write a book, and yet not have an opinion on the content within their own book. Somehow it is hard to add anything to a page on Progressive Creationism when the editors, themselves, are not objective. Oh well. I used to like Wikipedia, defend it against the English department, and support it as a tool in the classroom and now I'm going to start telling my students that not only is there the accuracy problem as with any wiki, but also a passive censorship feature as dictated by the opinions of the editors. Turns out, even discussion pages aren't meant for discussion. I think I'll go and buy myself the last remaining set of Encyclopedias for my personal library. My books never tell me to be quiet. Sblankman (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Stephen Blank