Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:Guidelines"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Template signatures)
(Introduction: adjunct)
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{guideline}}
+
These guidelines form an adjunct to the [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]].
 +
 
 
== Attribution ==
 
== Attribution ==
  
Line 17: Line 18:
 
Notice that at no point do these statements endorse any of the views. The sample text provided merely states what each view is, without saying whether any of them is correct or incorrect.  
 
Notice that at no point do these statements endorse any of the views. The sample text provided merely states what each view is, without saying whether any of them is correct or incorrect.  
  
Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe". <ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Talk:John_the_Baptist&diff=prev&oldid=212792 Ed Poor (→Proposed sections for alteration: please add to discussion - Why not do here what Wikipedia CLAIMS it does?)]</ref>
+
Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe". <ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_the_Baptist&diff=212792&oldid=212409 Ed Poor (→Proposed sections for alteration: please add to discussion - Why not do here what Wikipedia CLAIMS it does?)]</ref>
  
 
In regards to attribution, always cite and give credit to your sources,<ref>Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.</ref> even if in the [[public domain]]. Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] assists new [[wiki]] users on [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to put footnotes]] in an article.
 
In regards to attribution, always cite and give credit to your sources,<ref>Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.</ref> even if in the [[public domain]]. Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] assists new [[wiki]] users on [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to put footnotes]] in an article.
 
== Notes ==
 
<references/>
 
  
 
== Civility ==
 
== Civility ==
Line 74: Line 72:
 
Conservapedia does not allow templates to be used as signatures, because of the potential they create for wide-scale vandalism, which could even be done by someone other than the person to whom the signature belongs.
 
Conservapedia does not allow templates to be used as signatures, because of the potential they create for wide-scale vandalism, which could even be done by someone other than the person to whom the signature belongs.
  
== More ==  
+
== Copying from other sources ==
See also:
+
 
* [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style]]
+
Copying from other sources is only permitted in specific circumstances, as explained below.  Note that this is an expansion of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment 1]].
* Other guidelines at [[:Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]
+
 
 +
=== Permitted ===
 +
 
 +
Copying from other sources can only be done in the following circumstances.
 +
* You are copying from a public domain source.  In this case, put a notice on the page to indicate this.  An example notice is {{tl|Copyright Details (US Government)}}.  Note that [[Wikipedia]] and Wikipedia mirrors are not in the public domain.
 +
* You are copying something that you wrote, on Wikipedia or elsewhere.  In this case, put a {{tl|copied from}} notice on the talk page of the article.  Note that it must be all your own work, and not include contributions made by other editors.
 +
* You are copying something that someone else wrote, with their explicit permission.  This must also be noted on the article or talk page, and the original author should also note, for example on his user page on the original site, that he has provided such permission.
 +
 
 +
=== Not permitted ===
 +
 
 +
The following is '''not''' permitted (unless it fits the criteria above).
 +
* Copying slabs of text from multiple other sources.  Just because you copy from several sources does not make it your own work.
 +
* Copying from one or more other sources and changing some words.  Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work.  If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying.
 +
 
 +
=== If you see a copied article ===
 +
 
 +
If you notice someone copying from another source, please bring it to the attention of an administrator.  Either he or you (see below) should put a {{tl|WP no copying}} notice on the user's talk page and delete the article.  That notice explains what is allowed and not allowed, and advises that the deleted article can be undeleted if the copy is permitted as explained above.  (A non-administrator can post the notice, although if the article name is included, it is worded as though an administrator posted it.)
 +
 
 +
== 90/10 rule ==
 +
The '''90/10 rule''', unique to [[Conservapedia]], authorizes the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive talk, bickering, [[last wordism]], and other unproductive activity.  Specifically, as has been stated in the [[rules]] since soon after the formation of [[Conservapedia]]:
 +
 
 +
:Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account
 +
 
 +
The '''90/10 rule''' is remarkably adept at discouraging and eliminating the [[mobocracy]] that runs rampant on other sites, such as [[Wikipedia]].  Implementation is simple and application is swift.
 +
 
 +
== See also ==
 +
* [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandments]]
 +
* [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]
 +
 
 +
== Notes ==
 +
{{reflist}}
  
[[category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]
+
[[category:Conservapedia Administration]]

Revision as of 08:50, 10 April 2008

These guidelines form an adjunct to the Commandments.

Attribution

There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "All living species of animals evolved from earlier species" and saying "Most biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species".

English teachers call that attribution.

Here's another example:

  • It was raining on Tuesday. (unattributed)
  • John said it was raining on Tuesday. (attributed)

Newspaper report on a murder trial:

  • Smith killed Jones.
  • Judge Robinson found Smith guilty of killing Jones.

Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X."

Notice that at no point do these statements endorse any of the views. The sample text provided merely states what each view is, without saying whether any of them is correct or incorrect.

Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe". [1]

In regards to attribution, always cite and give credit to your sources,[2] even if in the public domain. Conservapedia's Manual of Style assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.

Civility

  • You must be civil. No bullying.
  • Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions.
  • There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t.
  • Violators of this CP Guideline will be blocked.

Article level

Articles should be written as much as possible to be understandable at a high school (ages 14 to 18) level, in order to ensure they will be accessible and educational to students. If more complex information is necessary, as in advanced math entries, then it should be explained as simply as possible in the introduction, and a full explanation should follow in the body of the article.

Reliability

A few suggestions about reliability.

  1. Reliability is the quality that makes people want to rely on you.
  2. It's like trust: you have to earn it.
  3. People test you, and you must pass their test, or they won't trust you or rely on you.
  4. A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated
  5. Science is reliable when enough scientists make enough effort to check each other's work.
  6. Bias gets in the way of reliability.
  7. Neutrality may not be an antidote to bias.

Sources

We should not allow any and all citations to newspaper stories. Journalistic opinions are not authorities, and journalists are not authorities on scientific issues. It is better to cite the scientific article directly.

Teamwork

A few suggestions about teamwork.

  1. Let others boss you around.
    • Yes, take assignments from your fellow editors. If someone asks you for an article on a topic you know about, or are interested enough to bone up on, please do.
    • Conform to formats, styles, and emerging patterns of article organization.
  2. Be nice to the other editors.
    • Sarcasm seems witty when you're typing, but will the reader really get the point you are trying to make?
    • Hurt feelings reduce cooperative spirit and ultimately work against teamwork.
  3. Be helpful.
    • Are you good at spellchecking, grammar, copyediting?
    • Do you know how to design a template or format a table?
  4. Let others know what you are doing, and respond quickly to queries.
    • Use talk pages, especially user talk pages.
    • Allow others to contact you via email or instant messaging
    • For really difficult issues, consider speaking by telephone

Template Signatures

Conservapedia does not allow templates to be used as signatures, because of the potential they create for wide-scale vandalism, which could even be done by someone other than the person to whom the signature belongs.

Copying from other sources

Copying from other sources is only permitted in specific circumstances, as explained below. Note that this is an expansion of Commandment 1.

Permitted

Copying from other sources can only be done in the following circumstances.

  • You are copying from a public domain source. In this case, put a notice on the page to indicate this. An example notice is {{Copyright Details (US Government)}}. Note that Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors are not in the public domain.
  • You are copying something that you wrote, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. In this case, put a {{copied from}} notice on the talk page of the article. Note that it must be all your own work, and not include contributions made by other editors.
  • You are copying something that someone else wrote, with their explicit permission. This must also be noted on the article or talk page, and the original author should also note, for example on his user page on the original site, that he has provided such permission.

Not permitted

The following is not permitted (unless it fits the criteria above).

  • Copying slabs of text from multiple other sources. Just because you copy from several sources does not make it your own work.
  • Copying from one or more other sources and changing some words. Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying.

If you see a copied article

If you notice someone copying from another source, please bring it to the attention of an administrator. Either he or you (see below) should put a {{WP no copying}} notice on the user's talk page and delete the article. That notice explains what is allowed and not allowed, and advises that the deleted article can be undeleted if the copy is permitted as explained above. (A non-administrator can post the notice, although if the article name is included, it is worded as though an administrator posted it.)

90/10 rule

The 90/10 rule, unique to Conservapedia, authorizes the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive talk, bickering, last wordism, and other unproductive activity. Specifically, as has been stated in the rules since soon after the formation of Conservapedia:

Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account

The 90/10 rule is remarkably adept at discouraging and eliminating the mobocracy that runs rampant on other sites, such as Wikipedia. Implementation is simple and application is swift.

See also

Notes

  1. Ed Poor (→Proposed sections for alteration: please add to discussion - Why not do here what Wikipedia CLAIMS it does?)
  2. Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.