From Conservapedia
(Redirected from 90/10 rule)
Jump to: navigation, search

These guidelines form an adjunct to the Conservapedia Commandments.

Post original content

Conservapedia wants original content on its website. Please do not post articles/essays from other websites to Conservapedia.

While exceptions are made for longstanding editors to copy some of their work on other websites to Conservapedia, this is an exception and not the rule.



Use plain English, preferably American English. Do not surprise the reader with strange or unusual meanings. Do not pull punches or sugar coat things, with a few exceptions.

  • Do not, for example, say "is controversial" when you mean "is criticized" - criticism is one side (negative), while controversy is two contending sides.

Avoid jargon, i.e., words which only experts in a field can understand. So, don't say femur when you can say Thigh bone. When explaining advanced concepts in mathematics or science, begin with an introduction which any high school student can understand. If you can't explain it in simple words to a 10-year-old, you probably don't understand it very well yourself. Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge.

Conservapedia's Manual of Style page

See also: Conservapedia's Manual of Style page

For important information on how to meet Conservapedia's quality standards when creating articles, please read Conservapedia's Manual of Style page .


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 atheist 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".

In regards to attribution, always cite and give credit to your sources,[1] even if in the public domain. Conservapedia's Manual of Style assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article.

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.

Article length

Please endeavor to make your articles informative. The quality of external links and citations will aid search engines finding your contributions. Create articles that provide value to our readers and which will prompt them to refer those articles to others. At a bare minimum, the majority of articles should be at least 300-500 words long - otherwise it is generally considered thin content (A rule of thumb: Paragraphs are usually about 100 to 200 words long, which is approximately 6-8 sentences).[2] According to Search Engine Journal, "Thin content can negatively impact your search rankings and on-site user experience, leaving searchers hungry for more."[3]

Avoid creating article stubs. Make sure your new page creation is properly categorized and look to make reverse links from other pages so it is not deleted as uncategorized or as an orphan page during a routine clean-up.

Conservapedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a dictionary.

In 2020, 11.8 million Google search results were analyzed by search engine optimization experts. The average Google first page search result contained 1,447 words (source: Here’s What We Learned About SEO).


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.
  8. Be careful about the credibility of your edits; may be you could incorporate information that enhance the credibility of an article or a page.
  9. Avoid exaggeration, extreme positions or radical points of view.
  10. Be objective.
  11. Conservapedia: Principles of evaluating historical claims and evidence

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.


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.)

Editing article and talk pages

See also: Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

Article talk pages, also known as Discussion pages, are an opportunity to build a cooperative and collaborative community of editors with common interests and values. They are designed to improve articles. When discussing changes to an article, have the discussion on the article's talk page where other editors can see, and not on a user talk page where it is unlikely to be seen by others.

Discussions will also be useful for later editors looking to see why something is in the article the way it is. Be polite, courteous, and stick to the main points of the discussion. Interact with other users civilly. Do not spam pages with reams and reams of copy paste material. Answer question or inquiries succinctly, to the point. If you don't know the answer off hand, tell them you will have to research the matter and get back in a timely fashion. If you feel the answer is too large for simple question, don't try to overwhelm the questioner with lengthy response. be civil, and not disrespectful at all times.

Sometimes discussions lead off to other matters. You can create new subheadings. If the discussion is no longer about the article, move the discussion elsewhere. In discussion remember to always be civil. Do not put User names in subheadings to invite other editors to gang up on an editor or hold up to ridicule. Personal attacks should be replaced with the {{personal remark removed}} template.


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.
    • Do not spam talk pages with copy paste material from elsewhere.
  3. Be helpful.
    • Can you find quotes and facts quickly by googling?
    • Are you good at spellchecking, grammar, copy-editing?
    • 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.
    • Avoid cliques and conspiracies. Join a project or Team effort.
    • Allow others to contact you via email or instant messaging
    • For really difficult issues, consider speaking by telephone
  5. If necessary use: Conservapedia:Image upload requests


See also: Conservapedia:Tolerance

Tolerance of opposing ideas means that we're not afraid of describing ideas we don't believe in. If you'll follow our editorial guidelines, then there's no idea off limits. Just write an article, essay or create a debate page that explains what the idea is, who believes in it, and the reasons they give for it.


See also: Conservapedia:Editing etiquette and Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks
  • You must be civil. No bullying. Incivility and personal attacks should be replaced with the {{personal remark removed}} template. Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors.
  • For content disputes, be reasonable and make every effort to use an article's talk page to have a cordial and constructive dialogue. Stick to the facts and avoid extraneous and impertinent arguments. Back up your facts with a source or sources. If you are proposing alternative content in a content dispute, it must be sourced. Do not engage in personal attacks. Do not put User names in subheadings to gang up on an editor or hold up to ridicule. Avoid excess verbiage. Avoid bringing up irrelevant past disputes with editors and stick to the content dispute at hand. If you have a content dispute with another editor, do not immediately post to the other editor's personal talk page. The article talk pages is where the vast majority of discussion should take place. Avoid unnecessary content disputes by sourcing your article content.
  • 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 the CP Guidelines will be blocked.

Inappropriate/trolling behavior

See also: Conservapedia:Bad faith editing and Conservapedia:Inappropriate/trolling behavior

Trolling can constitute any one or more of the following behaviours:

  • Monopolizing discussions by repeatedly talking more than the other side despite saying little to nothing relevant/coherent:
  • Responding to reasonable requests and questions with off-topic or potentially offensive rhetoric;
  • Posting outrageous comments to bait people; or
  • Employing redundant arguments intended to occupy and waste the time, efforts, or energies of other users or to distract them from productive editing and making mainspace article contributions.
  • Flaming or flame wars; posting user disputes over multiple pages.
  • Intentionally engaging in behavior designed to irritate others
  • Engaging in doxxing. Doxxing is the criminal practice of releasing private or sensitive information about someone online for the purposes of harassment, intimidation and/or malicious intent.
  • A user that spends 90% of their editing time and activity making redundant arguments, complaining, harassing and/or impeding other editors productive activity.
  • Undoing the actions of a Senior Admin without consultation.

Many trolls are attention seekers, or they just enjoy annoying people. Some however, have a direct purpose or agenda -- to destroy the Conservapedia project and limit its ability to build an internet community. They do so by inconveniencing and harassing users. Trolling is a blockable offense. However, blocking the troll does not always solve the problem; determined trolls can continue their activity through blocking appeals and sockpuppetry. Some trolls have been known to persist for several years.

Dealing with longterm abusive editors can be problematic. Blocking them does not make them go away; they can return angrier and more determined to attack and harass a specific user, or article pages.

90/10 Rule

The 90/10 rule is designed to encourage productive edits to our encyclopedia articles, essays and debates (see also: Conservapedia essays and Conservapedia debates). The purpose of the 90/10 rule is to discourage unproductive editing such as belligerent editing and trolling at Conservapedia (Please see: Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks and Conservapedia:Inappropriate/trolling behavior - Examples).

The 90/10 rule discourages users from spending 90% of their time complaining, carping, cutting people down and forming cabals at Conservapedia - and only 10% actively helping to craft good encyclopedia articles/essays and participate in Conservapedia debates. Useful editing means making worthwhile edits and includes collaborative efforts to improve articles/essays on talk pages. The rule is applied to a person's editing activitity as a whole and not smaller periods of editing. For example, if users have a history of productive editing and they are editing talk pages to improve articles/essays, participate in debates or make various improvements to Conservapedia, the 90/10 rule will not be applied to them. The 90/10 rule is only applied to disruptive editors.

Conservapedia encourages collaboration to improve articles, essays and debates.

This rule is also designed to help productive writers so they are not unnecessarily hindered by groundless complaints, specious arguments, etcetera.

In terms of enforcement of the rule, in most cases, users will first be given a warning (unless it is believed they are belligerent editors or trolls). If that is not successful, and they still engage only in useless arguments, they may be block for a period of time. If they persist, they may be blocked for longer periods of time. Permanent blocking is reserved for editors who are not good-faith editors and merely want to harrass, waste others time, etc.


See also: Conservapedia:Essays

Conservapedia has essay space. To create an essay at Conservapedia please put the prefix "Essay:" in the title of the Conservapedia web page. In addition, please place the {{Essay}} Template at the top of the page.

Essays must be original content and not largely copies of other web pages on the internet. In addition, essays should follow the Conservapedia commandments, Conservapedia's Manual of Style and the aforementioned guidelines.

Essay space is not intended for editors to carryout personal attacks, denigration, or ridicule of other CP editors.

Debate pages

Unlike Conservapedia, Wikipedia does not have a policy where members of the public are free to set up debate pages and engage in vigorous debate where the debate pages are lightly moderated (see: Conservapedia debates pages). Conservapedia debate pages are lightly moderated and can be freely set up and/or participated in by members of the general public who behave in a civil manner.

Wiki editors at Conservapedia are volunteers. Their volunteering spirit should be respected.

Editing etiquette

Do not be discourteous - use the Minor Edit box when appropriate.
See also: Editing etiquette

Editors have found that good editing etiquette can reduce the arguments that frequently occur between editors with opposing viewpoints. Developing good editing etiquette habits can help build an editor's reputation as a neutral and fair arbiter if asked to render an opinion. Good editing etiquette practices span the spectrum of user interactions, and almost need to be developed into subconscious habits or unconscious reactions to bait. They begin with considering how your actions may impact upon others. Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." For example,

  • Checking "Minor Edit" is a feature that allows you to mark a change as not significant. Examples of insignificant edits would be typo corrections, where only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions, like rearrangement of text without modifying content, etc. In short, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Such edits are marked in the page revision history with a lower case, bolded "m". Do not be discourteous to other editors by clogging up Recent changes with minor edits so the page or pages you are working on float to the top. Check the Minor Edit box when appropriate.

User pages and user space

Your user pages, user talk, and user space 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. Users are free to remove comments from their own user talk pages.


  • Templates should only be created with specific sysop approval, and then immediately protected.
  • 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.
  • All templates should be submitted here for approval.

Member Accounts

See also: Conservapedia:User rights

As a sign of good faith and accountability it is recommended that editors select a user name based on a permutation of their name. Whenever this would cause confusion, a name based upon a hobby or characteristic would also be acceptable. Obscene or offensive usernames will be blocked on sight. In addition to blocking, junk accounts are subject to deletion at any time as a housekeeping measure. Also,

  • Conservapedia does not allow "sockpuppet" accounts or unaccountable anonymous proxy use.
  • Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project. We welcome opposing views, but are not interested in users who come here only to change articles to their ideology, or disrupt by constantly arguing on the article talk pages that we are "wrong". Trolling comments, incivility and personal attacks can be removed from discussion pages.
  • We are not a debate forum, but a project. If you contribute, where you can, by adding substantive content, abiding by our Guidelines, we welcome you. If not, remember it is a big Internet, and you should go where you can support the goals of that project.
  • Pick a secure/good password for your Conservapedia user account. Some suggestions about picking a secure/good password for your Conservapedia account are located HERE.

See Conservapedia:Civility

  • Blocked users who feel their block is contrary to these policies, are encouraged to email the Administrator blocking them, stating their reasons and giving any explanation(s) for their action(s). The blocking Administrator will consider their explanation/request, and respond with due diligence. If your ability to email has been revoked, look at the blocking Administrator's user page for alternate contact information, or simply email asking it be forwarded to the blocking Admin. Make sure you use the subject "Blocked". You should also copy and paste into the email the message and information you see when getting the block message.

Topic bans and discussion page bans

If an editor has a problem with the quality edits in a particular area(s), he may incur a topic ban. Please see: Conservapedia:Topic bans.


See also: Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide

The Administrators of Conservapedia have the ability to protect/unprotected pages, edit protected pages, move pages, block/unblock users, mediate and resolve disputes.


  • Unlike Wikipedia, we do not block for ideological reasons. Warnings are appropriate, not for obscenity, vandalism or parody (Which are block-able offenses without warning.), but for silliness and other problems. In rare cases, our approach to repeated ideological conflict is to lock the page, and then allow the Administrator Group to make changes on a manual basis based upon submitted suggestions on the Talk page.
  • Revert wars and trolling a discussion page on points contrary to the Conservapedia philosophy, a pattern of continued use of vulgar or sexually based words, all are cause for blocking a user. Name calling and insults are disruptive to the site and most likely will result in a block as well.
  • Administrators and Bureaucrats can be consulted on questions of policy and procedures. Concerns about the validity of an interpretation should be directed to a senior administrator or bureaucrat, who is directly involved in the creation and application of policy.
  • Editors with blocking rights must be careful in the issuance of a block. A block is to be respected both by the recipient and by others with blocking privileges. When an error occurs, it's best for the blocking editor to undo so as to limit confusion. However, this is not always possible.


Conservapedia is a meritocracy. Administrators are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion, and nominations not accepted. By your own work shall you be known.

List of Administrators


The block function and other user rights have been devolved to select users who have shown an ability to be trusted. Many of the current Administrators started as one of these Assistants and this status can be considered a way to evaluate users for promotion. As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response. Sysops assistants may not undo Senior Administrator actions without consultation.


Conservapedia:Blocking policy

Conservapedia administrators and sysop assistants are not to engage in heavy-handed blocking or capricious blocking. If an editor is blocked by a Conservapedia administrator or blocking sysop, it should be done in a fair-minded and judicious manner. The ultimate purpose of blocking is behavior modification, and it should not be carried out in spirit of vindictiveness or vengeance.

See also


  1. Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.
  2. Word Count List – How Many Words Your Text Should Have,
  3. Is Thin Content? (And How Do You Fix It?), Search Engine Journal, 2021