Debate:Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?

From Conservapedia

I think it has to do with how they are treated by some in the upper echelons of this community. Personally, I feel bullied when I disagree with someone more conservative than me. Very often, rules don't seem to apply, and oftener still, complainants are told to "shut up and get back to work." What can we do to keep people here? People who are valuable, not just random vandals? I ask anyone to please respond.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flippin (talk)

• [Chris Hedges] had some interesting observations on "Fresh Air" with Terri Gross recently where he said that we will see the jockeying for power among conservative christians and sooner of later how they will turn on each other. He drew a parallel of what happens in authoritarian/totalitarian countries with how many conservative groups operate - the ones that grab the power kill of their own kind first - and keep limited opposition to show their supporters as to why they must remain in power. He talked about how megachurches are isolated from their community and often bring mililary/law enforcement types to their meetings/churches - preparing for that day when they will rule as it were with the law enforcement on their side. Admiteddly this did sound somewhat far fetched, but the more I look, the more I am worried about what is going on today. When debate does get difficult, you are often told to Shut up and do as told. Seekcommon

Create a requirement that at least two sysops must agree to a ban of any user with more than 50 useful edits in the main namespace. The two sysops must sign the ban notification on the user's talk page. Any sysop can unban any user with more than 50 useful edits in the main namespace who has been banned by only one sysop. Teresita 20:15, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

COMMENT There are some fine people here on this site, of many different stripes - young homeschoolers (I mean young relative to me...), people who found CP after the media blitz, and even a few great people who worked hard on WP and came here to do the same thing - work hard to make it better. I see evidence of their presence all over the place. However. There are some, who are not so good at "playing with others". Somewhere along the way they seem to have learned a trait best described as "everything I know is right". Coming across their comments and "contributions" and criticisms takes the wind out of ones sails as far as making this site better. Not because of content, but because of style. I know I'm hanging on by a thread here, and I find that the more I interact on this site, the more I see this blind foolishness from some people. Just some, certainly not "most". But that "some" does tend to include a much higher proportion of "people in power" than the contributors at large. I think the goal of the community should be to identify behavior that resembles what I describe, and gently re-educate those who display it (whether all the time or those of us who just do it occasionally) so that they contribute in a more cooperative manner. Human 19:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Administrator's Comment The first question mentioned above is a loaded question. The logs show that many of those who have been asked to leave lately, have in fact contributed little beyond comments on the Talk pages of a few hotly contested articles--this when they could be concentrating on any of a number of other content areas. Many of these comments have been pointlessly insulting, and some have been quite vulgar. I will not repeat any of them here.

This encyclopedia has a very broad scope. And yet, as I said, most of the recent changes have been to a very limited number of pages--all in the Talk namespace.

My advice to everyone is to find a subject that you are comfortable contributing about, and write about that--always remembering the Conservapedia Commandments, and that this is a site that minors frequent, and also write articles for.--TerryH^Talk 19:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I will grant that this is a loaded question, however I have observed some unnecessary nastiness on the part of the powers that be at this site. There is a marked lack of respect for people that make contributions, particularly if the knowledge they dispense runs counter to ideology. I understand that the owners of this site want it to be pro-American and pro-Christian, and that is fine. However, ideology can be the foe of knowledge. There is too much of a “I know what I know attitude” at times. To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.--Ak1053287

Now suppose you explain that. Remember what I meant by "a loaded question." The question makes a complex claim: that several users are deciding to leave, and that the ones who are taking their leave have made "significant" contributions--which the question does not define. Now I have evidence that most of the contributions that a lot of those users have made, are to the talk pages of a few contested--and currently protected--articles. Now come on. Who said that those articles represent the be-all and end-all of human knowledge? Surely there must be something to which people can contribute, that would not be controversial?

So: do tell why you feel that some people here are closing their eyes to facts. Let's get this straightened out.--TerryH^Talk 20:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

No one, to my knowledge has made the claim that they represent the final word of knowledge on a particular subject. But I have made a few contributions (to the US history lecture) that should not have been controversial at all, yet that page has been protected. If an individual wishes to contribute some thing non-controversial, that is limited by their desire to do so and their knowledge of a particular subject. On the matter of controversial subjects, could it not be noted in the encyclopedia entry that there is some disagreement?--Ak1053287

Well, that's what talk pages are for. But I would give you this word of advice: make your point in a polite manner, and then find something else to write about while the article's authors/protectors take your suggestion under advisement. The last thing that any editor needs right now is to get a reputation for being all talk-ee and no write-ee.--TerryH^Talk 21:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm thoroughly embarrassed to have my screen name on the same page as that last comment. Human 22:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Claim embarrassment if you will, my dear Human. But that is the reality here, as you would know if you monitored User talk:Aschlafly. Which maybe you should. And--in case you didn't notice, I am an administrator. Now that might not mean that I necessarily speak ex cathedra. But it does mean that I have a pretty good idea about the direction of policy around here, because I make it my business to know--as my job requires. Now it's up to you, Human, but you might consider that an administrator knows what he's talking about.

And if you still don't consider me a reliable-enough source, then you might want to take a gander at this.--TerryH^Talk 00:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

All due respect to your adminship, TerryH, but I think you might not have caught what offended me, so I'll quote it: "all talk-ee and no write-ee".

By the way, I have read the "commandments" and strive to obey them, of course. One thin to keep in mind is that the relatively experienced net user goes through stages on a place like this - 1. Lurking. Simply reading things to see what the deal is. 2. Minor, tentative contributions to see how it feels and works - perhaps punctuation or spelling on articles, and dipping ones toe into the discussion pages. In fact, a newcomer such as myself would be more comfortable discussing things on "talk" and letting the people who have been around for a while incorporate any useful ideas I present into the article. 3. Last comes wholesale editing - addition to and creation of pages on one's own. I am getting to close to stage 3, myself, and I think that the list of "dead end" pages is a great place to start work. Human 13:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I got it, all right. The phrase to which you took exception, refers to certain users, ninety percent of whose edits are concentrated on a few Talk pages and are of a sort more appropriate to an Internet flame war than to a serious scholarly colloquy. It does not refer to someone who uses the talk pages for genuine, productive discussion. Be advised that the administration will use discretion in judging not merely where a user spends his time but also the quality of his edits in any namespace.

In your case, I would encourage you to plunge into "Stage Three" as soon as you feel comfortable. "Dead end" pages (that is, pages that don't seem to link anywhere) are one place to start. The vast volume of stubs (in the "Articles needing major improvement" category) is another.--TerryH^Talk 14:08, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I got the 90%/10% thing (especially when I learned from WP that the Commandments had changed...). That was easy. It was the use of racist language that upset me. And I have noticed on here that the discussion pages are not used strongly to develop articles, many are, as you say, "flame wars". I use them to discuss articles, and probably will never exceed 50% article edits - since every article edit (other than typos) prompts me to make mention of it on the talk page for purposes of clarity and cooperation. Human 18:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us close the curtain of charity (Mark Twain) on accusations of "racism" where no such thing is intended--nor, I maintain, is reasonably inferable.--TerryH^Talk 22:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I called the phrase racist, not you. It was inflammatory and well, I'd go on but I'm having fun on this site and see no reason to get banned by someone who can't see how affecting pidgin "Chinee" is incredibly offensive. I don't know what you mean by the curtain of charity (couldn't find reference to it in the link you gave?), and as far as inferable... if you don't get it, I can't teach you from here, in this venue where I have to present but a shadow of who I am in order to contribute. I suggest you ask some people you don't know very well if how the phrase strikes them. But I am content to stop cluttering up this talk page with this discussion, neither of us getting anywhere, and we certainly aren't "improving the article". Oh, and to be fair, since that whole "I'm dropping this now" thing sounds like an attempt at "having the last word", I'll leave any comment you now make unchallenged. Human 22:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I actually don't think this is as loaded a question as you presume. I did not say all, nor some, I didn't make a value statement about anything other than the number of edits. Some users who make some very useful edits are shoved out of the way by the more ideologically-driven on this site. Some choose to leave after they've tried to seriously help. How do we remedy that? is really my question. Flippin 10:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

In case anyone is interested, I have added some purely personal and probably rather polemical thoughts about the administration of Conservapedia on my user page. AKjeldsen 15:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

A big reason why is the censorship. When articles like Vulva are deleted and protected from further editing, you are censoring. It's a freaking medical term for a human body part. And you censor it without even attempting to pretend to be representing a conservative point of view. Conservatives aren't against body parts. Radical Christians are. This isn't Radical Christian pedia. It's Conservapedia.Tarpoot 00:10, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

True, I'm really getting frustrated at evangelicals on this site. This is suppose to be a conservative viewpoint, not a religious fundamentalist viewpoint. Intranetusa 14:15, 16 March 2008 (EDT)