Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,910
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 415:
Line 415: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
This was presented by Andy, and added to the Style Manual here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style]], under "What Not To Add To Articles". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 19:46, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
This was presented by Andy, and added to the Style Manual here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style]], under "What Not To Add To Articles". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 19:46, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
== Uncite template - I would appreciate fellow Sysop support ==
Dear fellow Sysops,
I am sending you a note about the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]] and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.
The Conservapedia article on [[homosexuality]] is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.
Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other internet websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:
Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments
Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style
Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help
Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.
My message on the indicated pages clearly indicates the template is to be placed on a article or section of an article that are COMPLETELY uncited. It also gives the template for merely indicating a sentence that is uncited. Lastly, my''' cited''' articles are clearly bringing internet traffic and the uncited articles are not only breaking the conservapedia commandment about citing your sources but they are creating Conservapedia articles filled with unverifiable or hard to verify information. Plus uncited articles are not making a significant impact in regards to bringing in search engine traffic.
Accordingly, I would appreciate Sysops efforts in supporting the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
::*I like the idea. We need more citations. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:37, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
*I like the concept, don't like the execution, without any warning or asking. My problem is, the changes made are an open invitation to Rational Wiki to flood all articles with requests for citations. It is not made clear, or wasn't when I read the changes some time ago now (and maybe they have been recently edited) how many are enough? I have always added the cite template when their are none, or simply did the job of a sysop and added them myself. However if there are two citations on a short article, does that merit the template? We will end up with a list with 10,000 articles on it, if we fail to give very specific instructions, and not the vague ones presently there. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 16:44, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:Conservative, TK makes a valid point about flooding articles with this template, similar to what we've seen with the <nowiki>{{stub}}</nowiki> template. I do think it would be helpful in certain situations, like the Homosexuality article or other lengthy articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:56, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:::TK and Crocoite, while I certainly agree with the fact that Conservapedia has enemies, I do think that we should not allow them to impede efforts to improve Conservapedia that are clearly warranted. Second, the uncited template is only to be used on articles or sections of articles that are COMPLETELY uncited. I cleary indicate this on the instructions for the template. Third, we do not allow the use of robots on Conservapedia so I don't think we can be flooded with uncited templates. However, if the Rational Wiki people want to take the man hours away from creating vandalism to helping us put uncited templates (that are tastefully designed) on articles I would applaud their helpful efforts as they will only help us gain higher search engine rankings. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
::::We do know of new editors that have been happy to add stub templates to most articles, then later Andy mentioned he thought they were being overused. I see the same potential problem with the uncited template. I don't think it would be helpful to add the template to small articles, such as [[Dusty Plasma]]. I think it should be limited to medium length articles, such as [[Peter Bourne]] or lengthy articles like [[Global warming]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:22, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
::Conservative's motives are the best, I know that. I am only frustrated with him thinking anyone disagreeing with his execution of his own ideas is his "enemy". Conservative, while you have been busy doing your article, which is very important, many of us have been grapling with vandalism and plots, from our real enemies. That is why it is very important for you to learn how to untilize the email and this page to discuss all of the ramifications first. While we do not allow bots, Conservative, we have recently been attacked by them. We cannot stop them. And would it not be fair to say that your visiting other sites, and linking to your article is a more direct cause of the Google ranking, and not the many citations? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 17:05, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:::TK, I clearly did not say that Conservapedians who oppose the uncited template being used are my enemies. Please kindly show me where I said such a thing. Secondly, I do realize the importance of vandal blocking, however, that is not germaine to the issue. Please keep your comments focused on the issue being discussed here. Lastly, I have not put much effort at all into getting other websites to our [[homosexuality]] article and accordingly I have only gotten one site to link to our article and the site does not get much traffic (I contacted 4 sites on Saturday). However, there may be a huge site which will link to our article but I am not betting on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Crocoite, I have noticed that putting a uncited template on articles early catches the problem while it is small. The problem with waiting until articles are medium sized is that there are so many contributors it becomes harder to contact the respective parties and remedy the situation. However, I do think that taking the time to put the uncited template on one sentence articles is not going to boost our internet search engine rankings. I have put the uncited template on 3-4 sentence articles, however, and it was quite successful. I also think that once people see citations on 3-5 sentence articles they will follow the leader(s). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:30, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Conservative, I would like to see your example where you put the template on a short article and it was successful in increasing the rankings. Perhaps such an example would demonstrate your point and get my full support. ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:42, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
*If that is so, I am asking you to amend your public changes to the Style Manual to reflect just what you said. You don't do a whole lot of maintenace or interaction with users, Conservative, and sometimes your ideas, while good ones, need discussion with your peers before you just rush out and make changes. Can you understand that? I have never made a change to our rules or guidelines without asking for input and a getting Andy's approval. I ask that no matter how justified your actions, that you do the same. IS that not fair? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 17:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
::::TK, I think I am very clear in the Manual of Style. What do you believe I am unclear about? Secondly, I do communicate with other Sysops albeit some more than others. It all depends on the project at hand. For example, I sent about 5-6 private emails to RobS yesterday. Third, Andy thinks that using a strategy of having more citations is "brilliant" and I don't think I am being impolite in dislosing our private communication. I also think the results speak for themselves. Being top 10 out of 17 million plus articles on homosexuality is worth emulating don't you think - especially when it brings in new editors? Why should we not help our editors get more readers? I do think that people enjoy most having their material read by lots of people. I think we should facilitate this and it will make our contributors happier and more importantly having well cited articles is doing a public service and uncited articles are not very helpful because people want true and VERIFIABLE articles. While cited articles are not necessarily true, citations enable people to evaluate the sources. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Andy Schlafly just approved my addition to the Conservapedia Commandments in regards to mentioning the uncited template. I just included it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Homosexuality]] article is now ranked #9 on Google. One of these days it will be number one - ahead of WP. ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::Dogpile, which does a Metasearch of Google, Yahoo! Search, Live Search, Ask.com, About, MIVA, LookSmart ranks CP #9 '''ahead''' of Wikipedia at #13. [http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web/Homosexuality/1/-/1/-/-/-/1/-/-/-/1/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/417/top/-/heavy/-/1] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:49, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
== Uncited Template.... ==
There seems to be a bit of trouble with it....
Check out [[Salvation]]. It not only adds the template, it also inserts a whole paragraph of instruction (totally un-needed) into the article. Does anyone know how to fix this? Perhaps these things need to be checkout better before encouraging their placement. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 14:17, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::Perhaps we could create another, shorter template that merely says that more sources are needed without going through the whole paragraph-long spiel? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:20, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
*The problem was caused by Conservative misplacing a no-wiki tag. I repaired it. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 14:38, 30 July 2007 (EDT)