24
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + + +
Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated (view source)
Revision as of 11:52, May 25, 2010
, 11:52, May 25, 2010→Yes: reply
Yes, it seems a convenient way to kick off people who aren't vandals and are making legitimate oppositing points. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:00, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, it seems a convenient way to kick off people who aren't vandals and are making legitimate oppositing points. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 10:00, 7 September 2008 (EDT)
Problematical. If Conservapedia does not have some measn of keeping the Wikipedia fanatics off it, won't it just turn into a clone of Wikipedia? What would be useful is for anything included in an article's text to have an ongoing percentage-user-agreement indicator. Speaking as someone who has been persistently blocked from Wikipedia merely for making contributions that were factual but against its agenda, I think that their system is hypocritical. Their homepage announces that anybody can edit it. Yet there are anonymous "administrators" who promptly block, silence and censor anybody whose views they disagree with. Just below what I am writing it says that contributions may be "edited, altered or removed by other contributors". What then is the point of contributing knowledge?
I definitely think there is room on the web for ALTERNATIVE articles on a wide range of subjects, particularly those which are overtly political and religious. Is there any such thing as objective truth? Good question. Meanwhile, what we need is CHOICE. [[User:HenriettaVanLaer|HenriettaVanLaer]] 07:52, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
==No==
==No==