Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, Check users, delete, edit, move, oversight, protect, rollback, Administrators
51,035
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 225:
Line 225: + +
Talk:Donald Trump achievements (view source)
Revision as of 11:31, June 23, 2017
, 11:31, June 23, 2017→Border patrol raid --> appropriate to add?
::::::::You are correct that people will edit on topics that interest them and we can't "force" people where they must edit. However, in any wiki, we need editors to copy-edit and fact-check every article. This is an online encyclopedia (mostly modeled after Wikipedia, but without the bias that is found there) targeted to a high school reader. It is not a daily newspaper; it is not a PhD dissertation; and it is not the bullet-point research notes for the author's next book. (People have tried to turn Wikipedia into all of those.) I understand what the Conservapedia article on "Baseball" is supposed to be. It would be weird for me to add a paragraph on last night's baseball game to it. We need to have a thoughtful, broad-based conversation on what this article is supposed to be. If Trump invites the winner of the 2017 World Series to the White House, does it get included in this article, the baseball article, or neither?
::::::::You are correct that people will edit on topics that interest them and we can't "force" people where they must edit. However, in any wiki, we need editors to copy-edit and fact-check every article. This is an online encyclopedia (mostly modeled after Wikipedia, but without the bias that is found there) targeted to a high school reader. It is not a daily newspaper; it is not a PhD dissertation; and it is not the bullet-point research notes for the author's next book. (People have tried to turn Wikipedia into all of those.) I understand what the Conservapedia article on "Baseball" is supposed to be. It would be weird for me to add a paragraph on last night's baseball game to it. We need to have a thoughtful, broad-based conversation on what this article is supposed to be. If Trump invites the winner of the 2017 World Series to the White House, does it get included in this article, the baseball article, or neither?
::::::::Trump promised an action-packed 100 days, so I can see how Conservapedia worked hard to document it in detail. Now that we have a cabinet in place and continue to have a very large federal work force, what is our criteria for determining that some achievement is included in this article? If a scientist at NIH discovers a cure for cancer, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"? If an infrastructure project which was planned during the Bush Administration, and built mostly during the Obama administration, has a dedication ceremony this year, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"? Let's agree on something to avoid future editor conflict and avoid confusing the readers. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 07:06, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::::Trump promised an action-packed 100 days, so I can see how Conservapedia worked hard to document it in detail. Now that we have a cabinet in place and continue to have a very large federal work force, what is our criteria for determining that some achievement is included in this article? If a scientist at NIH discovers a cure for cancer, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"? If an infrastructure project which was planned during the Bush Administration, and built mostly during the Obama administration, has a dedication ceremony this year, will we call it a "Donald Trump achievement"? Let's agree on something to avoid future editor conflict and avoid confusing the readers. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 07:06, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::This article and the "Baseball" article are very different articles. One talk about the sport, and the other lists the achievements in the Trump Administration and Congress in advancing conservative ideals and policies. No achievement is too small or insignificant to include here. It is ridiculous to create silly "criteria" which will lead certain editors to oppose including an obvious achievement because, for example, it "doesn't spend as much money as the formal criteria states". '''''Whether to include these achievements will be decided on a case-by-case basis, as I have been saying all along.''''' Is this not enough for you? All of your examples can easily be solved if we decide them on a case-by-case basis. Whenever I see an achievement that might not be worth posting in the article, I add it to the talk page in the hope that people will comment on it. This is a case-by-case basis. Finding some "criteria" will just waste our time and lead to more harm than good. There are no formal criteria that define what is an achievement ''other than if it advances conservative ideals''. That is the only guideline in including information.
:::::::::And once again, the "first 100 days" is complete garbage. I am not making any distinction on the first 100 days and the rest of the four years. Sure, politicians try to make their achievements in the 100 days look grand, but achievements are achievemnts regardless of the date in a presidency, and the time in which they are made makes no difference in advancing conservative policies. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
== VA to deal with under/unused buildings ==
== VA to deal with under/unused buildings ==