SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 120:
Line 120: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 12:32, September 4, 2012
, 12:32, September 4, 2012→Proposed Rewrite of 90/10 Rule: new section
It also needs to be clearly specified the rules do not apply to debate topics. There's no point in having a debate section if users can be banned for discussing there. Edits made to the debate section should not count at all. It makes zero sense to say we want to discourage the incessant talking of other sites when we have a debate topics section that other wikis don't have! And if we allow banning for opposing points of view in the debate topics section, then it makes the debate section pointless. What point is there in having a debate section where only one side is allowed to present their points? That is ridiculous. I debate constantly from socially conservative points of view, but there's no point in debating only those you agree with, you never learn anything or say anything that needs to be heard. You'll never convince anyone allowing only one side to present their arguments. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:02, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
It also needs to be clearly specified the rules do not apply to debate topics. There's no point in having a debate section if users can be banned for discussing there. Edits made to the debate section should not count at all. It makes zero sense to say we want to discourage the incessant talking of other sites when we have a debate topics section that other wikis don't have! And if we allow banning for opposing points of view in the debate topics section, then it makes the debate section pointless. What point is there in having a debate section where only one side is allowed to present their points? That is ridiculous. I debate constantly from socially conservative points of view, but there's no point in debating only those you agree with, you never learn anything or say anything that needs to be heard. You'll never convince anyone allowing only one side to present their arguments. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:02, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
== Proposed Rewrite of 90/10 Rule ==
I propose rewriting the section as follows - proposed changes are bolded:
<blockquote>The 90/10 rule, unique to Conservapedia, authorizes the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive article talk page,[2] bickering, last wordism, and other unproductive activity. Specifically, '''as stated in the Conservapedia:Commandments since soon after the formation of Conservapedia''':
"Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account '''after 50 total edits to articles and talk pages (excluding debate pages)'''."
The 90/10 Rule applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Inordinate amount of talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk, as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn. Users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. But no project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk.
'''Discussion of liberal viewpoints should occur on debate topics, not on articles and their talk pages. Users who edit articles and their talk pages should be productive by the 50 edit mark (excluding debate topics, which exist to allow disagreement from opposing views).'''
The 90/10 Rule is remarkably adept at discouraging and eliminating the mobocracy or talk pollution that runs rampant on other sites, such as Wikipedia. Implementation is simple and application is swift. </blockquote>
I also propose a new section for "Point of View" as follows, with any other key issues added as necessary:
<blockquote>Conservapedia operates from a conservative point of view, specifically a Young Earth Creationist, pro-heterosexual marriage, Pro-Life point of view. Articles and article talk pages should therefore avoid support for Evolution, homosexuality, and abortion, given the site's purpose. Those who wish to discuss contrasting views should do so in the debate section.</blockquote>
--[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 08:32, 4 September 2012 (EDT)