Changes

:Some people need to keep in mind that we need to build a community. That doesn't mean blindly accepting anybody, but it also doesn't mean giving five-year-blocks to people who point out that you made a mistake. My very presence here shows that things are moving in a better direction, so let's hammer out a way to distinguish between blocking (months/years for vandalism) and nudging (hours, days to cool down). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:03, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

:Some people need to keep in mind that we need to build a community. That doesn't mean blindly accepting anybody, but it also doesn't mean giving five-year-blocks to people who point out that you made a mistake. My very presence here shows that things are moving in a better direction, so let's hammer out a way to distinguish between blocking (months/years for vandalism) and nudging (hours, days to cool down). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:03, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you Sid for your positive input, hope to hear more. One problem is a mindset that everything Wikipedia does is wrong. While that may be true in article content policy, Conservapedia needs to learn it can gain much from Wikipedia's experience dealing with vandalism and sockpuppetry. Blocking & Checkuser are not the magic panaceas some people imagine; if an angry editor wants to be heard, they will find a way to get in and only make the sysop and whole project look foolish for thinking they can enforce unenforceable rules. As Sid alluded to, it's easier to build a balanced and civil community with a healthy tolerance of diverse views, and persuade people to positively contribute by example, than constant sniping in a war the project cannot win.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:44, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

::Thank you Sid for your positive input, hope to hear more. One problem is a mindset that everything Wikipedia does is wrong. While that may be true in article content policy, Conservapedia needs to learn it can gain much from Wikipedia's experience dealing with vandalism and sockpuppetry. Blocking & Checkuser are not the magic panaceas some people imagine; if an angry editor wants to be heard, they will find a way to get in and only make the sysop and whole project look foolish for thinking they can enforce unenforceable rules. As Sid alluded to, it's easier to build a balanced and civil community with a healthy tolerance of diverse views, and persuade people to positively contribute by example, than constant sniping in a war the project cannot win.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:44, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

::Recall that our brand of conservatism is not to stick blindly to every old idea and value, but only to the "tried and true". A genuine conservative is open to new ideas. What we reject, ideologically, is a knee-jerk adherence to modern liberalism which wants to throw out the baby with the bath water.

:::There are two mindsets which hope we will make equal effort to avoid: the attitude that everything Wikipedia does is evil, and that everything Conservapedia wants to do is irrational.

::We should '''describe''' every liberal idea, in as much detail as it takes to let our readers understand it. We need not endorse it, nor should we tolerate users who sneak in liberal ideas '''as if they were the unquestionable truth'''. Likewise, we need to be aware that much of what American Christians and Conservatives believe is incomprehensible to the average liberal. In the USA, liberals shield themselves from new ideas just as much as religious fundamentalists do. I wish we'd be more like the [[Jesuit]]s, who study everything very carefully, serene in the knowledge that finding out more about what others belief is no obstacle to maintaining one's faith. It is only those who are shaky in their own faith, or who want to pull the wool over the eyes of people they're trying to dupe, who oppose any open examination of the issues.

:::Recall that our brand of conservatism is not to stick blindly to every old idea and value, but only to the "tried and true". A genuine conservative is open to new ideas. What we reject, ideologically, is a knee-jerk adherence to modern liberalism which wants to throw out the baby with the bath water.

::So I welcome contributions from people whose beliefs are different from mine. Just look at the way I've tried to describe the two main branches of [[Creationism]]. I can't recall any time that a difference between YEC and OEC has flared up into a quarrel or edit war. Contributors on both sides have agreed to "[[write for the enemy]]", so to speak. That, by the way, is one Wikipedia policy which we ought to retain. Every contributor who writes about a controversial subject should always describe every aspect of it in such a way that (A) no one can tell which side of the controversy the contributor is on and (B) that anyone on the opposite side of the controversy would agree that the aspect has been described accurately and fairly.

:::We should '''describe''' every liberal idea, in as much detail as it takes to let our readers understand it. We need not endorse it, nor should we tolerate users who sneak in liberal ideas '''as if they were the unquestionable truth'''. Likewise, we need to be aware that much of what American Christians and Conservatives believe is incomprehensible to the average liberal. In the USA, liberals shield themselves from new ideas just as much as religious fundamentalists do. I wish we'd be more like the [[Jesuit]]s, who study everything very carefully, serene in the knowledge that finding out more about what others belief is no obstacle to maintaining one's faith. It is only those who are shaky in their own faith, or who want to pull the wool over the eyes of people they're trying to dupe, who oppose any open examination of the issues.

::People who disagree with this core policy should not be invited to contribute here. If they get in without knowing what we're about, or if they came on purpose to thwart our aims, we should weed them out promptly. The only exception I would make is the sort of "lost sheep" that Andy feels could be reformed with some kind attention from us, but still I feel that such people should not be allowed to trample on the rest of us.

 

:::People who disagree with this core policy should not be invited to contribute here. If they get in without knowing what we're about, or if they came on purpose to thwart our aims, we should weed them out promptly. The only exception I would make is the sort of "lost sheep" that Andy feels could be reformed with some kind attention from us, but still I feel that such people should not be allowed to trample on the rest of us.

:::Let's find a way to promote our editorial aims with civility and a mutual good faith effort to provide our readers with timely, valuable and trustworthy information. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 13:37, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Let's find a way to promote our editorial aims with civility and a mutual good faith effort to provide our readers with timely, valuable and trustworthy information. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 13:37, 16 August 2011 (EDT)