SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 172:
Line 172: + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 05:15, September 5, 2012
, 05:15, September 5, 2012→Conclusion
::"Christians look bad if they are forced to have things thrown in their faces which are contrary to their beliefs" - Actually, I'm pretty sure Christianity is supposed to believe in something about turning the other cheek. Doing unto others as you want them to do to you. Loving your enemies. That kind of thing. I am a Christian first and political afterward as a side effect. I still hold concerns that this 90/10 rule is allowing for blocking of anyone for any reason, and is contrary to Christian ideals like honesty and fairness. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 18:23, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::"Christians look bad if they are forced to have things thrown in their faces which are contrary to their beliefs" - Actually, I'm pretty sure Christianity is supposed to believe in something about turning the other cheek. Doing unto others as you want them to do to you. Loving your enemies. That kind of thing. I am a Christian first and political afterward as a side effect. I still hold concerns that this 90/10 rule is allowing for blocking of anyone for any reason, and is contrary to Christian ideals like honesty and fairness. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 18:23, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::"Turning the other cheek" does not mean we stand there and get slapped repeatedly; "honesty and fairness" does not mean we accept ideas or edits that are hostile to our beliefs or harmful to this site; "loving your enemies" does not mean you're going to stand there and allow the enemy to have his way on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::"Turning the other cheek" does not mean we stand there and get slapped repeatedly; "honesty and fairness" does not mean we accept ideas or edits that are hostile to our beliefs or harmful to this site; "loving your enemies" does not mean you're going to stand there and allow the enemy to have his way on this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
::::I never said we needed to "accept ideas or edits that are hostile to our beliefs or harmful to this site". I was arguing instead that IF we are to ban on the basis of such liberal beliefs, then what we should do is state that clearly in policy. It's why I proposed putting in policy, "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."
::::As a former CreationWiki editor, I don't mind one bit with a wiki having a Creationist Point of View - I just think that we should clearly state it in the rules to ensure honesty and fairness. Right now, the difference I see is that CreationWiki states their policy clearly in their rules: "The articles on the Creation Wiki are written specifically from the "creationist point of view" (CPOV), which holds that the universe and life on Earth were created by God. Because of the unique purpose of the Creation Wiki in providing a point-of-view digest, only creationists are permitted to edit articles. Non-creationists (or atheists) are prohibited from making any changes to text, except for spelling and grammar corrections. However, everyone is encouraged to review articles content using the adjoining discussion pages."[http://creationwiki.org/CreationWiki:About]
::::I still say such a policy should be clearly stated the way CreationWiki states theirs, to ensure everyone knows what the site rules and policy are. You seem to be thinking I am saying Evolutionists should get to say whatever they want on the site. To the contrary, I am saying we should be more similar to CreationWiki in fairly stating what the policy is in the guidelines in order to be honest with everyone. I actually like the Creation Point of View (CPOV) which is why I said earlier, "the site does have a specific purpose of conservatism, and I see nothing wrong with that." I don't mind wikis like CreationWiki and Conservapedia having specific points of view, I just strongly feel they should state this up front in the guidelines so the wiki's policy is clear to everyone. CreationWiki does that, Conservapedia does not. That's the difference.
::::CreationWiki is clear in stating what their Point of View is. I'm not convinced Conservapedia does so. And I think the 90/10 rule is vague enough that it gets used to get rid of people for any reason or no reason, and needs to be clarified. CreationWiki is clear in stating they want articles written from a certain POV. Everyone knows banning can occur for violating this. Conservapedia doesn't state their policy, and instead allows editors to use a catch-all clause in the 90/10 rule, banning them arbitrarily. So I am saying I am fine with the wiki having a Creationist POV, but like CreationWiki, it should clearly state with this is, and make a rule for banning based on it - and make the 90/10 rule more clear so it's not used unfairly anymore on people who've made just a few edits, including to the debate section. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:15, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Perhaps a review of the blocking policies could be implemented for this dispute?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:25, 4 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Perhaps a review of the blocking policies could be implemented for this dispute?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:25, 4 September 2012 (EDT)