SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate: Why does the 90/10 rule exist? (view source)
Revision as of 03:31, December 22, 2015
, 03:31, December 22, 2015Let me try to explain this.
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 w\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.
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. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 22:31, 21 December 2015 (EST)