Debate: Why does the 90/10 rule exist?

!

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

Because I'm new, I've just read over this rule while I was reading one of the FAQ pages. And to be honest, I find this rule to be rather weird compared to the majority of the internet. I mean, isn't it counterproductive to ban someone for providing constructive feedback in the talk pages if they don't feel like editing the wiki?-AllenA, the confused newb.

Let me take a stab at explaining the rule and its context. First, I'm not endorsing or excusing it in any way. I abhor and detest it.

Because Conservapedia takes a stance, politically and on other issues, that is quite far from being "centrist", it is subject to a lot of opposition. (I assume you know that. If not, look around.) Most websites of this sort are "blogs", "advocacy sites" or "news" sites of various types, that can prohibit, or at least control, adversarial comments. They do this by not allowing comments at all, or by deleting those that they don't like. (A number of such sites are linked from Conservapedia, by the way.) But this site is an open wiki, which is quite an unusual configuration for a web site with such a strong editorial stance on so many issues.

Because of this, a lot of people have, over the years, gotten into heated arguments with the "powers that be". Specifically, with sysops and administrators—people with blocking powers. The sysops sometimes are willing to take on adversaries in arguments over various topics, but they sometimes lose patience. Some of the arguments that I've seen over the years have reminded me of arguments between children and their parents, in which the parents finally get exasperated and shut down debate. Parents can send children to their room. The equivalent action for CP sysops, to shut off debate, is blocking.

In order to be somewhat tolerant of dissenting ideas, the procedure has developed into the "90/10" rule. The intent is to prevent people from coming here only to argue with the powers that be. The idea is that, if you are reasonably constructive in contributing to the place, you will be cut considerable slack in expressions of opinions that are not consonant with the views of the powers that be. You will sometimes see the behavior that they are trying to cut down on described as "talk, talk, talk". The rule has been sort of quantified: At least 10% of your edits must be "constructive contributions", that is, edits to article pages. 90% edits to talk pages gets you into trouble. Distinguishing things by whether they are article pages or talk pages is rather imperfect, but the idea is that arguing will be on talk pages. (If you get into arguments on article pages, you are in deep trouble; and that's not specific to Conservapedia.)

There is a lot of leeway in this. People have been 90/10 blocked for ratios far short of 90/10. It often depends on the person doing the blocking. You will also see something in the rules about sysop actions must be obeyed at all times. Also, sysops are not allowed to overturn other sysops' blocks.

I hope this helps explain what's going on. Once again, I don't endorse this at all. I've been blocked 15 times, often by people who were later found to be vandals. SamHB (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2015 (EST)

The answer is this: Conservapedia is not a chat site, but a place where open-minded editors seek to learn and grow. That means substantive edits, not just talk.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2015 (EST)

It is to suppress dissent. That is how totalitarian regimes work, they allow "free" speech as long as it tows the party line, if not you're gone. This will be seen with my impending block and the oversight of this message. If you came on here and made 1000 edits to main pages and just 1 on a talk page disagreeing with the power that be you will still be gone.--StanM2 (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2015 (EST)

That is a gross exaggeration of the situation. People (myself, for example) disagree with the sysops all the time. But I must say, what you just wrote pushes all the wrong buttons. Not only is it mathematically beyond 90/10, but it is petulant and (Quick, Vargas! Give me some adjectives!) It is a sweeping overgeneralization of how horrible you perceive the powers that be at Conservapedia to be. There is simply no way anyone could engage you in discussion after what you wrote. I would be rather surprised if you aren't blocked by the time I finish typing this. But I doubt it will be oversighted. SamHB (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2015 (EST)

Kind of strange that the user who calls himself StanM2 whines about the 90/10 rule being "to suppress dissent." Isn't that what is happening right now in his home country of Britain, vis-a-vis liberal support for the banning of Donald Trump? And isn't the banning of Trump in Britain what Stan supports, based on his recent edit on the main talk page? Can't complain of being censored here when you fully support it elsewhere, StanM2. Karajou (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2016 (EST)

The 90/10 rule means that editors who talk 9 times more often than substantively edit are the ones blocked under the rule. The incessant "talk, talk, talk" becomes too much of a distraction from the goals of the site: to learn with an open mind.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2015 (EST)

More people read the article pages than the talk pages so StanM2's comment is nonsensical. Leftist whiners hate to the 90/10 because it sets an expectation of doing constructive edits that are in accordance with the basic and reasonable rules of the Conservapedia commandments. Conservative (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2015 (EST)