111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 141:
Line 141: + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Commandments (view source)
Revision as of 01:51, October 23, 2008
, 01:51, October 23, 2008→Amendment Recommendation
:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness just requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we find useful? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.
Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:
3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.
I begin to wonder whether or not it might be helpful to I don't understand why we must pretend otherwise, when the site could be used as a tool to gather information that is strictly of use to conservatives.