SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 179:
Line 179: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 05:22, September 5, 2012
, 05:22, September 5, 2012→Conclusion
::::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)
::::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)
::::The other thing is that CreationWiki does not have a debate topics section. I'm not aware of any other wiki that does have one. And that muddies the waters a bit. It's fine to say "we don't like liberal points of view on the site" but that doesn't mean you want to censor them in the debate topics section too, right? If so, you should clearly state rules like 90/10 don't apply to the debate topics section. Because otherwise, it looks pretty ridiculous to have a debate topics section at all if you don't want to let opposing views participate in it. If you're going to make keeping liberal points of view off the site in all areas, including debate topics, fine, but I think the whole debate topics section, at least on politics and religion, should be completely removed then. No other wikis have a debate topics section suggesting openness and freedom of discussion. So it comes off as hypocritical to then let opposing views be censored in the debate topics section via 90/10. Basically, the idea that too much talk is wrong and that opposing views should be censored on the wiki is completely contrary to the concept of a debate topics section including sections on religion, philosophy, and politics. So if you only want one side to be allowed to participate in the debate, you might as well just delete the debate topics section, as it would be more honest in stating the site discourages discussion of the issue. If that's the route you want to take, fine, but at least be honest with everyone about it. --[[User:JZambrano|Joshua Zambrano]] 01:22, 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)