Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce? as edited by JessicaT (Talk | contribs) at 02:06, 4 January 2009. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting


Altering or deleting the record of debate - even if that debate is conducted on a Users' Talk Pages - changes the story, removing voices of opinion from the thread of debate which led to the article content.

I agree that changing the record of a debate (other than removing 'simple vandalism' or 'personal remarks' alters it to the point where it can't even be called a debate anymore. --Ed Poor 11:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Ed! You give me warm glow of happiness! Your response is my simple argument in a nutshell. I have, as I have said, no problem with the idae that a site such as this should exist - of course not. But it's the idea that it actually is a collaborative 'Encyclopedia' that I have a problem with. Why not just rename the site? 50something

Yes, deleting comments, editing comments after posting them, and removing whole sections is disingenuous. Debates are meant to bring out different view points and everything needs to be displayed to accurately allow other users to decide who to side with. When you start editing history, key points can be left out or forgotten. And, to the annoyance of some editors here who pull out the "talk page is a castle" line, when debates are deleted, topics are brought up multiple times because there's no record of them already happening. Jrssr5 16:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
If it's wrong, why are there numerous instances in any given week of Sysops editing out comments on article Talk pages based on them being "nonsense", "liberal fluff" or "talk pollution", when the only problem with the content is that the deleting person didn't like it. Delete vandalism, sure, but I can easily produce a list of recent incidences where comments that don't support the conservative viewpoint were removed from talk pages because they hit the mark a little too well, and were censored instead of being refuted. --DinsdaleP 11:38, 13 June 2008 (EDT)


I disagree with the idea that a user talk page is a good place to conduct a debate. Anything involving site policy, such as editorial direction, should probably be given a wider venue than just one user's "castle".

If you can't get agreement with an individual user, don't waste time throwing stones at their living room window. Ask someone else (like me, I'm a "leading" sysop); create an entry in Debate topics; or appeal to Mr. Schlafly. --Ed Poor 11:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

And I too would agree with that - debate should ideally be conducted on the discussion pages for an artcile. However, when debate spills over onto a User's Talkpage - as mine did recently with Conservative, the - hopefully brief - part of the record that lands there hould NOT be removed, as that user constantly does. It is closed argument, which is not part of the great tradition of this country. 50something
Have you considered going back into the history of the talk page, and copying the thread? --Ed Poor 12:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I did, but he kept removing it. 50something

What is this, Sovietpedia? This is exactly the sort of thing the USSR used to do. (And we in America wuite rightly mocked them for it.) --Gulik3 01:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)