From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Breaking News

I agreed to participate in this contest provided the points scoring is amended to include Breaking News items and edits to associated articles. Several of us sysops modify the Breaking News on a daily basis and it's only fair to award points based on our contributions.

I propose this addition to the point system:

  • Breaking News Item: 3 points
  • Definition: A Breaking news item is placed on the Main page with wiki links to Conservapedia articles and a link to the external reference article.
  • Exception: A non-administrator who submits an article to an administrator and the article is placed on the Main page will receive 1 point and the administrator will receive 2 points for adding the article and links. It is at the administrator's discretion whether to place the article on the Main page.
  • Bonus: Adding a relevant photo will receive 2 points. Editing an associated article (wikilinked) will score points under the regular points system.

Lieberman Blasts Democrats Over Partisan-Driven Foreign Policy Fox News [1]
"Sen. Joe Lieberman painted a dim picture of his party, saying Democrats have given up their moral authority on foreign policy because they are more concerned with opposing Republicans than doing what is right."

This article was placed on the Breaking News section of the Main Page.
The wiki links to Conservapedia articles are: Lieberman, Democrats, etc.
The external link is,2933,309620,00.html. --Crocoite 11:57, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Such a plan would require the unprotection of Template:Mainpageright for the duration of the contest, otherwise the contest would be biased towards the sysops. --transResident Transfanform!
The template will not be unprotected since that would leave it open to vandalism. There are sysops available on both teams so it would still be fair. --Crocoite 13:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)
I'm not a sysop and I agree. The small inconvenience during the contest is not worth the price of inviting in vandalism. Learn together 17:04, 9 November 2007 (EST)
As in the past, I think you may have that tool, or why not, may be, become a sysop regarding your good work in CP. Let see what TK thinks about it.--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 17:12, 9 November 2007 (EST)
Thank you my friend, but I think I should clarify myself since I did a poor job above. I'm not a sysop, but I agree that the policy of keeping templates protected is appropriate, even if it means a slight inconvenience to people such as myself. That inconvenience is a small price to pay if it keeps away a major source of vandalism. Learn together 18:01, 9 November 2007 (EST)
  • No unprotections, sorry. I agree with the point structure, as I think that is what it was last contest. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 14:18, 9 November 2007 (EST)

This contest is so unfair: if I simply start keeping score for the edits I normally make, my team will certainly win! :P --Ed Poor Talk 16:59, 9 November 2007 (EST)

  • Ed Poor, I invite you to make substantial and accurate edits here at the fasted growing educational site on the Internet, and not just on silly talk pages! If you make an ancillary page from your user page, with the link there to it, and merely list your edits, and what you did, I would be honored to attach and add the points for you, a living wiki legend! --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 18:12, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Super-Secret Team Pages!!

Could we please have their creation and links? Thanks! --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 17:09, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Pick me pick me :-)

I just joined yesterday but I'm eager to help :-) -MexMax 17:21, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, yes....get Andy to pick some, so I can! He is holding up everything! :P --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 18:22, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Do you guys still need a member #10?!? Maybe I'll join just so you guys can begin; I'll hardly be able to do much --Steve-o 20:57, 12 November 2007 (EST)


Do we have names? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:50, 11 November 2007 (EST)

If you need judges (I don't think we had any for the last contest) I can volunteer. I don't have much time right now to actually join the contest, but I should certainly have enough time to judge if you want me to. HelpJazz 20:01, 11 November 2007 (EST)
It's done on an honor system; after all, there are no cash prizes. While it would be nice to have judges, I think it was decided that it was too difficult. There were judges in the first contest, but it took them a long time to finish and that was after working very hard! It took me hours all by myself just to add up my totals from the last contest, so multiply that by 14 or so!
Realistically, since we're all on the same team (the CP team), we should be able to reach common understandings on any differences without too much trouble. Learn together 20:45, 12 November 2007 (EST)


I do not think plagiarism should count towards points. Please have a look at the number of revisions I made to plagiarised articles by one of the contestants. --JBuscombe 14:24, 18 November 2007 (EST)

  • Since you have absolutely no idea what real plagiarism is, JBuscombe, I invite you to discuss before deciding on your own authority (since you have none) to make wholesale removals and undo the work of long-time editors here. --şyŝoρ-₮K/Ṣρёаќǃ 15:55, 18 November 2007 (EST)

Suggestions for Improvement

Ok - well before (I think) we started to do this whole judges thing, I layed out a few things that I thought should be changed. And I just would like to throw some points out there:

  1. Edits to entertainment articles are marked down to much, I think they should get about 3/4 the value of non-entertainment - as we shouldn't have quality edits to entertainment articles shouldn't even be close to minor edits to regular or entertainment articles.
  2. Copied entries should have a specified point value. I think they should get 2 points each and bonuses should not be allowed to be tacked on - copied entries require the same amount as minor edits - and therefore they should get the same amount of points.
  3. New Quality Entries should get more points - they should get about 20, they way more time than minor edits - and the system we have now doesn't show that.
  4. Redirects should get 2 points.
  5. Breaking News Items should get 8 points - 5 to the person who finds the story - 3 to the person who puts it up. I know there was some talk about making it 10 - but seriously? Breaking News Items are not that hard to find, you go to (or whatever) and you see the headlines. Pick one.

Alright, those were just my thoughts - I actually did the full chart at User:Iduan/testrun, but since now we're getting more into it I just wanted to make sure I could throw ideas out there --IDuan 23:34, 25 November 2007 (EST)

I agree with a lot of what Iduan has said but feel that sysop activities are not compatible with a competition. So points for blocking and reversion of vandalism which require but a mere mouse click, should be excluded. I strongly believe that the focus of competitions should be towards permanent mainspace article improvement and creation, which should therefore exclude breaking news items which are temporary, or welcoming new users. Also, all competitors should be able to compete on an equal footing so privileged access to locked pages is not allowed. I think images should be graded, so that an individual's own pictures, drawings and diagrams to illustrate an article (if relevant) should be better rewarded than a public domain image found on the internet, as this is something that they have personally created and donated to Conservapedia; something which then differentiates Conservapedia from other sites. As a modest example (cough, cough) I would cite my own map of Chichen Itza, which I did as a labour of love and which cannot be found anywhere else. Finally, too many edits do not contain an edit summary. I think that I may be unique in providing an edit summary for everything I contribute (check my user stats for confirmation), but you can enforce this in your own user preferences and maybe edits without a proper summary should have a penalty point deduction.
These are just a few points and I may have more to say after further reflection. BrianCo 14:51, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I disagree with the idea of excluding "breaking news items which are temporary".

First, the Breaking News items are an important part of this site. They not only inform the editors of news items they may have missed, but they also contain links to the relevant articles at Conservapedia. Finding an appropriate article and properly placing it with appropriate links is definitely justified in receiving points during a contest. Iduan's suggestions are a start for further discussion.
Second, the articles are not necessarily temporary. The Breaking News items are archived. Some of them are archived by subject. Previous Breaking News Terms H Some of these are directly referenced in the corresponding article. Articles about Hugo Chavez from previous "Breaking News" and Previous Breaking News/Hugo Chavez.
Third, these archived articles are useful references to enhance an article. For example, #4:
Hugo Chavez demands that Pope Benedict apologize for saying the Roman Catholic Church purified Indians in Latin America. Chavez called the treatment of Indians after Christopher Columbus landed in 1492 a "holocaust". See article here.
The Hugo Chavez article did not even mention this item. I modified the article to include this item. [2] By using the previous news items as references, editors have another unique resource to assist them in creating quality articles for Conservapedia.

In summary, The Breaking News articles are much more important than Brian realizes (because they can influence permanent mainspace article improvement and creation), and therefore should receive points in a contest. --Crocoite 15:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Crocoite, I don't doubt the importance of breaking news items and you are ceratinly the driving force behind them. However, items on the main page are not accessible to ordinary editors. For sure ordinary editors can suggest an item but it requires the active approval of a sysop for them to be posted, while a sysop can post their own item without any approval; this does not create a level playing-field for all competitors. Furthermore, breaking news is a continuous process, I would hate to see a plethora of items suddenly overwhelm the front page just because a contest is being held, most of which would be skipped over. Breaking news needs to be concise in order to have impact. In my opinion the Main Page is currently overly long; while it could be improved with some design changes (a smaller font for example) there are simply too many items to fit on a normal computer screen without excessive scrolling. However, all that is not relevant to a the discussion of future competitions. I know that you might feel that this would deprive you of point scoring in a future contest, but to make the conditions fair for all competitors I think that Breaking News should be excluded in future comps. Of course like any other competitor you would still be able to contribute to the editing and creation of other articles. These are just my contributions to the debate which I would like the judges to consider. I'm sure Mr. Schlafly will use his wisdom to make the ultimate decision based on their recommendations. BrianCo 16:46, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I agree with Brian that there should be a point for edit summaries - however I disagree that reverting vandalism shouldn't get even a small number of points. I would say reverting vandalism and keeping the site clean is equivalent to making a minor edit to make one page look slightly better (like bolding).--IDuan 20:28, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Let me expand a little on why I believe contest points should not be awarded for reversion of vandalism. Firstly, I would hope that any CP editor will revert vandalism when they see it, it should not become a game of musical chairs to see who gets to it first or become the focus of partisan points scoring. To my mind, the purpose of competitions is to encourage people to make a special effort above their normal level of participation. It would seem to me that blocking and the reverting of vandalism are well handled as a matter of course. Also, reversion of vandalism normally only requires the single click of an undo button and so is not something that requires any particular effort.
In my desire to create a level playing field for all competitors, we should also consider when most vandalism occurs. As editing during the night is turned off for unregistered users, vandalism is going to be something that occurs during the day or evening US time. Reversion of vandalism is often a matter of being in the right place at the right time; people in a different hemisphere, such as the antipodes or eastern Asia are therefore placed at a disadvantage as there is unlikely to be much vandalism during their editing hours. I am also concerned about the negative image that is projected by awarding points for banning and reverting vandalism, it portrays Conservapedia as being in a state of siege which it certainly is not. Especially after the strong growth of recent months. I do not intend to belittle any of the activities for which I think points should not be awarded, they are all of great value to Conservapedia. I just feel that it is inappropriate to make them competitive issues. BrianCo 14:36, 27 November 2007 (EST)


This is a complete travesty. Lack of recordkeeping? Every edit I made is linked on my contest score page. If poor recordkeeping is an issue, then I challenge every point by ASchlafly and GregLarson since neither individual enumerated any of their edits and calculations. False claims of credit and overcrediting? The one point of controversy here was my use of a template to increase my score, and I conceded that point on day 1 and retracted the points. If you feel specific articles should have been scored differently, then by all means retabulate my score. But I certainly have not cheated, I resent the entirety of my contribution being stripped as some sort of juvenile penalty, and I'm tired of being the whipping boy for a poorly designed set of rules and for following practices performed in prior contests without so much as a second glance. SSchultz 15:43, 25 November 2007 (EST)

You mislabeled your contributions and claimed credit for creating Schizophrenia. Geo.Complain! 23:13, 25 November 2007 (EST)
I didn't claim credit for creating it, I claimed credit for editing it. SSchultz 23:58, 25 November 2007 (EST)
SSchultz, I can assure you that our ruling was not to make you the whipping boy, nor was it made because of faults in the rules. Also, the points for the template had already previously been removed, so the template did not factor into our decision. If you want to know why we ruled this way, please e-mail Geo or me. Thank you. HelpJazz 16:27, 26 November 2007 (EST)


(For use by judges only)

Sschultz entry points (2-0)

This matter was referred for determination under the rules for Contest3. The locus of this dispute revolves around the contributions of User:SSchultz. Some of his articles are felt to be silly, thereby becoming an attempt to game the system and unworthy of merit. Is a "silly article" worthy of points?

We, the Judges feel that this should not be so. The rules are clear. Entries should be of value and, most importantly, educational. Consequently, we approve the striking of all points given during this contest for uneducational/silly articles/edits. this determination is universal and applies to all editors.


Geo.Complain! 21:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
HelpJazz 21:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Addendum (2-0)

We, the Judges, feel that due to the lack of recordkeeping on the part of SSchultz, false claims of credit, and blatant overcrediting, his score will not be counted into the official total.

Geo.Complain! 21:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)
HelpJazz 00:06, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Brianco lecture linking (2-0)

As regards the matter of linking by BrianCo between lectures, we decide as follows. The points are to be allowed as the rules clearly allow such points to be accrued. We, the Judges, exist solely to interpret and apply the rules, therefore we must rule accordingly.


Geo.Complain! 23:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)
HelpJazz 23:20, 25 November 2007 (EST)

GregLarson categorization (2-0)

This matter directly stems from the SSchultz controversy. At bar is whether or not points should be allowed for editing entries which were disqualified by the judges for their very limited nature. We feel that this should not be, and consequently disqualify all such edits. We feel that, when the rules are vague, the guiding principle should be that points are granted for improving Conservapedia. This applies not only to the individual edit made, but to the whole article. Greg made contributions which would normally be helpful, however they were made to pages which should not have been there in the first place. For these reasons, we have determined that the points gained by removing the template from the pages in question shall be negated.


Geo.Complain! 23:32, 25 November 2007 (EST)
HelpJazz 23:46, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Contest Outcome (2-0)

Despite the point adjustments noted above, the overall winner remains the same. Congratulations to Team Supply Siders!


HelpJazz 21:56, 29 November 2007 (EST) Geo.Complain! 23:25, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Proposed Changes to rules

Since Conservapedia contests are, by their nature, group events, we feel that it is not for the Judges to decide how future contests will be run. We would advise that all interested participate in the great discussion occurring above. We have, however, come up with some general guidlines and suggestions, which we think can be helpful for future discussions. They are listed in no particular order.

  • Define roles for Team captains
    • There was some confusion as to what, exactly, a Team Captain's responsibilities include. Adding this language to the rules could help clear up confusion in the next contest.
  • Ensure all players fully understand the rules before the contest commences
    • Players who are unclear of the rules can cause undo strife and confusion. Ensuring all players agree and understand the rules will lead to a more fun competing atmosphere.
  • Remove the rule granting points for linking within American Government lectures
    • We feel that contests should stay within the realm of the encyclopedia. Additionally, adding redundant links within a lecture do not serve to improve the lecture.
  • Add rules governing actions not currently covered (such as adding a redirect)
    • Lack of a specific rule in these areas lead to players guessing how many points undefined actions are worth.
  • Mandate clear point tallies
    • During the course of judging, we had to go through the contributions of some players and try to determine which edits coincided with which points. This is an undue burdon on the judges which is easy to remove. While there is no need to go into as much detail as he did, Iduan has created a transparent, easy to read, and easy to judge points tally.
  • Define a purpose for the contest as part of the rules
    • For situations which the rules do not cover, having in writing a "spirit of the rules" can help guide players to the correct action.
  • Enact a system for interpreting rules during the contest
    • For some actions, it is necessary to have an immediate ruling, rather than wait until the end of the contest.
  • Rewrite the rule concerning "Wanted Pages" links
    • Since the Wanted Pages is a dynamic page, a given term's wanted status can easily change within the contest. Additionally, it is prohibitively difficult to determine, when judging, whether a page was actually on the wanted pages list at the time the page was made.


HelpJazz 21:56, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Geo.Complain! 23:26, 29 November 2007 (EST)