Changes

::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. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)''I was trying to find the reverts - or are they gone permanently since someone decided that it was inappropriate/wrong/whatever?''[[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 2:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

::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 was trying to find the reverts - or are they gone permanently since someone decided that it was inappropriate/wrong/whatever?'''''[[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 2:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

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...