Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I really don't see what other purpose it serves. Saying that it's to 'save bandwidth' or 'conserve server space' doesn't really hold water, as a single graphic takes up as much space as a long page of heated, footnoted, scholarly debate. --Gulik 14:21, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

totally agree, although you should put enough edits in that it doesn't matter, but it is a bit mean (although they just block people for other reasons while debating)-Greenmeanie 22:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I absolutely agree that the 90/10 rule serves only as a rationalization for the arbitrary banning of users who present legitimate arguments and foster debate within the conservapedia community. We have all seen that the majority of users don't abide by the 90/10 rule (including Sysops and admin). This rule serves only as a means to authoritatively monitor the site. --AndrasK 10:26, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Of course it does. It's just another way to silence debate and give an excuse to block those who are a problem. Ultimahero 14:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

yep, its only original pupose may have come from good ideals however, now its become a false pretense

Yes, it seems a convenient way to kick off people who aren't vandals and are making legitimate oppositing points. CraigC 10:00, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Problematical. If Conservapedia does not have some means of keeping the Wikipedia fanatics off it, won't it just turn into a clone of Wikipedia? What would be useful is for anything included in an article's text to have an ongoing percentage-user-agreement-indicator. Speaking as someone who has been blocked from Wikipedia merely for making contributions that were polite, factual but against its agenda, I think that their system is hypocritical. Their homepage announces that anybody can edit it. Yet there are anonymous "administrators" who promptly block, silence and censor anybody whose views they disagree with. Just below what I am writing here on Cpedia it says that contributions may be "edited, altered or removed by other contributors". What then is the point of contributing knowledge? I definitely think there is room on the web for ALTERNATIVE articles on a wide range of subjects, particularly those which are overtly political and religious. Is there any such thing as objective truth? Good question. Meanwhile, what we need is CHOICE. When I search for something on the internet, I search using its name and add "-Wikipedia" .HenriettaVanLaer 07:52, 25 May 2010 (EDT)

Wasn't Conservapedia created as a learning resource? Openly debating is the best way to learn because it forces you to really look at your arguments and justify them. If you want to become a faster swimmer, would you jump into a river and swim with the current or against it?--CainR 13:30, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

And why should we have open debates with individuals who are openly wrong? There's a difference between right and wrong, and we're not going to waste time with those who openly push the wrong stuff. Karajou 21:46, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

My viewpoint on this issue is not a simple one. On the one hand the rationale is obvious and legitimate, the (at least stated) objective of the site is to create an encyclopedia, not a forum for talking about politics. On the other hand it does appear that the only time a 90/10 block is given is when a person who disagrees with a senior admin is making points that the senior admin is having trouble refuting. I have never seen a person blocked under the 90/10 rule who was in substantial agreement with a senior admin. Therefore, in my opinion, the rule itself is a good one, but its application is very often used as a means of censorship. It may very well be that Conservapedia should simply declare that a certain POV is a prerequisite for membership, rather than taking this route that is so obviously open to criticisms of hypocrisy. In short, I would have to say that my opinion is a qualified YES. --DamianJohn 00:56, 28 December 2011 (EST)


The purpose is to encourage development and growth of CP. This is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum or chat room, and although some debate over articles can be necessary and welcome, to allow endless round-the-block-and-back-again arguments is counter-productive, does not resolve disputes, and is a distraction from the main purpose of the site. Also, the 90/10 rule is quite generous to 'talkers' as it stands. Bugler 04:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Exactly. This is not AIM, this is an encyclopedia. #1denverfan 20:56, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
I am a big fan of the 90/10 rule. Who created it? Conservative 22:19, 27 December 2011 (EST)
That is not surprising, given your usage of the rule to ban those who suggest that you should argue against the points made, rather than insulting those who made them. Here's a recent example: . Perhaps you should should review the page on ad hominem attacks. (Note, if you respond, it may be a long time before I reply, because Conservapedia prevents editting during the night in the US, which makes it difficult to find a reasonable time where I can edit. Not everyone lives in the US.) - JamesCA 22:25, 1 June 2012 (EDT)
That's messed up. No edits during nighttime? RaymondZ 11:58, 5 January 2013 (EST)

No, but yes

The reason for the 90/10 rule existing is not to squash debate, however, that is how it is used. I recently came across a discussion on a topic, where after a few posts by each of the two discussing the topic, one decided to use the 90/10 rule to block them. In the middle of a discussion! The 90/10 rule should be removed because it fails in its aims, and is used to clamp down on opposing opinions. Instead, conservapedia should be encouraging users to become more involved and to contribute to more articles, which would be way more effective than the 90/10 rule. - JamesCA 02:36, 17 March 2012 (EDT)