Changes

I bring this up as a topic of discussion, not a criticism.  I wonder if ASchlafly needs to consider reconciling the goals of this site in regards to its format.  A wiki is an inherently democratic format...anyone can contribute, and errors are theoretically diluted as more and more people become involved.  Over time, experts' edits will outnumber those of vandals and non-experts.  The stated goals here, based on what is explicitly written and what has taken place in edits, appears to be less democratic, with an agenda being set from the top down.  ASchlafly insists on expert opinion, but when it disagrees with his worldview, he edits articles which fall out of his own expertise.  I do not mean in any way to impugn his morals or objectives, but perhaps a wiki is not the best format for him to accomplish his needs.  If he wants an online extension of his textbooks, wiki is definitely a poor format to use.  IMHO.

I bring this up as a topic of discussion, not a criticism.  I wonder if ASchlafly needs to consider reconciling the goals of this site in regards to its format.  A wiki is an inherently democratic format...anyone can contribute, and errors are theoretically diluted as more and more people become involved.  Over time, experts' edits will outnumber those of vandals and non-experts.  The stated goals here, based on what is explicitly written and what has taken place in edits, appears to be less democratic, with an agenda being set from the top down.  ASchlafly insists on expert opinion, but when it disagrees with his worldview, he edits articles which fall out of his own expertise.  I do not mean in any way to impugn his morals or objectives, but perhaps a wiki is not the best format for him to accomplish his needs.  If he wants an online extension of his textbooks, wiki is definitely a poor format to use.  IMHO.

Id be interested in comments/responses, and will also post this on my discussion page.

Id be interested in comments/responses, and will also post this on my discussion page.

::I would add that the simplification of the commandments has added to confusion over what is (subtle) vandalism, what is a source, what is opinion, what is appropriate or inappropriate content.  The inconsistent enforcement of these commandments has made for an uncomfortable work environment.  For instance, here is the February 17 version of the [[John McCain]] page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=14293]... every edit to that point was made by Aschlafly and it clearly violates many of the commandments.  Nothing is sourced, a good deal is opinion and not verifiable.  When I cleaned it up by taking out the unsourced opinion, but leaving the unsourced fact, I was accused of removing factual information.

::I would add that the simplification of the commandments has added to confusion over what is (subtle) vandalism, what is a source, what is opinion, what is appropriate or inappropriate content.  The inconsistent enforcement of these commandments has made for an uncomfortable work environment.  For instance, here is the February 17 version of the [[John McCain]] page [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&oldid=14293]... every edit to that point was made by Aschlafly and it clearly violates many of the commandments.  Nothing is sourced, a good deal is opinion and not verifiable.  When I cleaned it up by taking out the unsourced opinion, but leaving the unsourced fact, I was accused of removing factual information.

::Further, I would direct you to the revert war going over on [[Physics]]: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physics&action=history].  The subject of the reverts is whether or not to call the universe "God's Universe" or not.  The commandment "give full credit to Christianity" is unclear and the user in favor of "God's universe" seemed to receive confirmation from Aschlafly that this would be appropriate.  So ''that'' is the primary reason given for "God's" inclusion with the article.  That is not indicative of constitutional republic or a rules based democracy, it is indicative of monarchy.

::Further, I would direct you to the revert war going over on [[Physics]]: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Physics&action=history].  The subject of the reverts is whether or not to call the universe "God's Universe" or not.  The commandment "give full credit to Christianity" is unclear and the user in favor of "God's universe" seemed to receive confirmation from Aschlafly that this would be appropriate.  So ''that'' is the primary reason given for "God's" inclusion with the article.  That is not indicative of constitutional republic or a rules based democracy, it is indicative of monarchy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

 

::I propose this discussion gets moved over to [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?]] to avoid cluttering up Aschafly's talk page.  [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This kind of discussion is exactly what I'm hoping for.  Thanks especially to Mr. Schlafly for contributing.  If, as you say, Wikipedia is more like a constitutional/representative democracy, then, to carry the analogy further, there should be a limited set of elected or appointed contributors who are trained to follow the commandments and who are true experts in their fields.  The "people" would be the subscribers to the site.  This still would not be a true Wiki.  I am not arguing against your goals--that is your business.  I am simply saying that the chosen format does not seem consistent with your goals.  For instance, this discussion...

This kind of discussion is exactly what I'm hoping for.  Thanks especially to Mr. Schlafly for contributing.  If, as you say, Wikipedia is more like a constitutional/representative democracy, then, to carry the analogy further, there should be a limited set of elected or appointed contributors who are trained to follow the commandments and who are true experts in their fields.  The "people" would be the subscribers to the site.  This still would not be a true Wiki.  I am not arguing against your goals--that is your business.  I am simply saying that the chosen format does not seem consistent with your goals.  For instance, this discussion...