Conservapedia talk:Commandments

Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable"

I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.

Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.

If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.

Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.Qc 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Whilst not a direct answer to your question, you might find that my Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia goes a fair way towards answering that.

There's no point in trying to list all reliable sources, and not much point in just listing a handful. So there's no need for a commandment on this.

This is not an official response; just my opinion. Others might see things differently.

Philip J. Rayment 04:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

"It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence cannot be proved. God's existence indeed can be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one. "

This quote from your article illustrates my point exactly. Conservapedia needs to set a standard for what constitutes valid "convincing" because every user is going to have their own personal threshold for accepting evidence. Saying evidence must be "verifiable" isn't enough because most editors don't even have an agreed upon definition of this term. Qc 14:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Two questions

I have two questions that I've been wondering about lately. First: what are our (and should we have) guidelines on notability? It seems like we have no real way to judge what should be in the encyclopedia. (For instance, somewhere around here, and I wish I could remember the name now, there's an article about a high school band.) I know we don't like many rules, but guidelines would be very helpful. Suggestions?

Next: do we (and should we) have rules on conflict of interest? I think largely you know best about yourself, so it would be wrong to completely ban conflict of interest cases. But how do we know when something has gone too far, or when someone is censoring information about themselves?

I don't know if these will or should go on the commandments, but this is probably as good a place as any to discuss. Help Jazz 23:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Notability is a very difficult one, in my opinion. I saw some of the debates on that on Wikipedia a couple of years ago. There was something there about not doing an article on every school, just "notable" ones. But then another of their guidelines on notability had to do with whether or not a book had been published on the topic. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many schools have had books published about them (certainly my primary school has, and probably my high school also, and the primary school in particular was only significant in a local sense).

Railway stations were another area of contention; probably not too many railway stations have had a book published specifically about them, but there's certainly plenty of books that give individual histories of each railway station. In a sense, you could define "notable" as anything that more than x number of people would be interested in looking up to find out more about it. But then there's not too much that would be off limits. And with an electronic encyclopedia where space is not that much of an issue, why not?

But I can also appreciate an opposing view that we don't want to much trivia and articles on insignificant topics. It's very hard to know where to draw the line.

We've said before that the best people to write articles are those that know most about them, and I don't see a problem with people writing about things close to themselves. However, what I would suggest is that if we are writing about something that we have a financial interest in, or about a person we are related to, etc. (again, it's hard to know where to draw the line), then we should declare our connection, i.e. make it known what our relationship to the topic (person, etc.) is. This will allow others, who of course can also edit the same articles, to judge whether or not we are being less than objective in our edits. That's a reason for using our real names too, of course!

Philip J. Rayment 05:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

Hey, Help Jazz is my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) Help Jazz 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Celebrating the Death of Inevitability!

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

Suggestion

That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. Bugler 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. HenryS 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. Bugler 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Where are these conversations? Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. Bugler 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. Bugler

Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place

This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.

That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. Bugler 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it was bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a private conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. Philip J. Rayment 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. Bugler 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "both on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. Philip J. Rayment 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? Bugler 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

That still doesn't tell me where this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was here. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. Philip J. Rayment 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. DanH 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. Karajou 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Please list banned sites

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --woozle 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. HenryS 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--Hurst 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --Benp 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--Hurst 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --Benp 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --Ed Poor ^Talk 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. HenryS 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Amendment Recommendation

Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... Alexander 12:15, 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? Help Jazz 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only 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 that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly 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.

Alexander 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

If you add number 3, then what's left? Help Jazz 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's allowed on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. Alexander 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I guess I see. Wouldn't it be quicker to make a commandment that says "don't put information that's positive towards liberals or negative towards conservatives" (because that seems to be the only subject left that doesn't fall into one of the three categories)? As Andy mentions (below me), a goal of a truthful, conservative encyclopedia should be clear enough, unless you are actually advocating putting into the commandments a policy that censors truthful information that sheds harmful light on a conservative. Help Jazz 22:42, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

The name "Conservapedia" simply means that we are free of liberal and anti-conservative bias. Conservative information is truthful. Our slogan (from the Gospels), "the truth shall set you free," is clear enough.--Aschlafly 22:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Comments Section

Just something I noticed: 18 USC § 1030, specifies penalties for fraud, damage, hacking, etc. to government, financial, and medical computers, or those that would cause physical harm to someone if tampered with. However, however important Conservapedia is, it doesn't seem to be included in this? Am I misreading (as I have no legal training, and only skimmed parts of it), or is the section in error? Umlaut 08:55, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Instead of having "only skimmed parts of it," how about actually reading it before spewing nonsense about it? It's not long and I don't think it uses any big words: [1].--Andy Schlafly 11:42, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I meant "parts of it I only skimmed", not "the only parts I read I skimmed", and this was simply because I really didn't need to see every detail of, say, the punishments. I read enough of the law to see what it in general listed; I was merely expressing that, while the general thrust of the law seemed to not mean what this page said, there might have been some minor technicality or precedent that extended its scope or changed its meaning. Also, was it really neccessary to assume that I was unable to understand it or had not read it, and accuse me of "spewing nonsense"? You are right, though. It is not terribly long, and uses few words that could be considered "big". Umlaut 14:06, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I think it's a fair question, Mr. Schlafly. I found the grammar and style next to incomprehensible. It's not a matter of any one word being big. It's legalese and cries out for a translation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umlaut (talk)

Please, counselor, be patient with us lesser mortals. --Ed Poor ^Talk 11:50, 28 February 2009 (EST)

'Umlaut' appears to be correct Mr. Schlafly. The kind of 'vandalism' that occurs on this site would not fall under the legal definition of vandalism in so much as this site is a wiki which any person can potentially edit, and indeed the site actively requests that people do edit it. The whole basis of a wiki is that it can be edited in such a manner and so even if an edit is indeed not conducive to the aims of the site, such as if factual material is deleted, then annoying and unhelpful as it may be to yourself and other users, it would not legally be vandalism. Besides this, the specific legal code in question, 18 USC § 1030, does as the original poster points out, refers to actual damage resulting from unauthorized access to a computer. For one thing, access to this website as I have mentioned is available to all, and secondly if someone does delete material from a page or add something to it then in virtually all cases no actual damage will result. Of course, the nature of any material that someone may add is still subject to the other two legal codes you mention and so you are right in pointing them out, but simply adding or deleting material from wiki pages that does not contravene these two aspects would not be vandalism in the strictest sense (although I accept that it is within the context of this site) and as such would not violate 18 USC § 1030. RobertWDP 13:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

My objection to Umlaut was with his attempt to interpret a statute, and even claim that Conservapedia is wrong, without actually reading the statute. As I explained, the statute is not long and does not use big words, so there is no excuse for Ulmaut's sermonizing about it without reading it first. A look at Umlaut's other edits here reveal a similar lack of substantive contributions.

Good faith discussion of the statute is welcome. It prohibits vandalizing a site and thereby harming it. When I get a chance, I'll pull some cases that use this statute.--Andy Schlafly 14:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Umlaut, your statement that started this thread remains nonsensical, and you still haven't corrected it. "Playing dumb" is not as entertaining as you may think. Read the statute, study it, and correct your prior statement if you want to discuss further.--Andy Schlafly 16:07, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Please check my post below your first one, as I feel that it responds adequately (and is posted there as it was a direct response). I in fact did read the law; I was merely stating that I had not thoroughly read absolutely every section, and might have missed a minor detail. While I personally don't find "legalese" hard to understand (it's like reading math), such an attempt would have been futile, as I don't have the kind of training or experience needed to actually catch every detail. I was merely expressing that the law didn't seem to apply here, and was asking if anyone with more knowledge could clarify. Umlaut 07:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

I agree with Ed Poor: It's written in legalese which makes it hard for us non-lawyer types to follow.

But thanks to Andy for providing a link, so I've now reach much of it for myself. You could, Andy, also help our understanding by pointing out which parts are applicable here. This is what I found:

Section (a) lists the offenses.
Section (b) says that the punishments in section (c) will apply.
Section (c) lists the punishments
Section (d) refers to government investigative agencies' powers.
Section (e) defines terms
Section (f) allows legal investigations
Section (g) says that civil actions can still apply.
Section (h) says that investigations are to be reported to Congress.

So the relevant parts seem to be section (a), the offences, section (c) the punishments, and section (e) for defining terms.

Section (a) is broken up as follows:

Subsection (1) applies to national defence and the like.
Subsection (2) applies to financial institutions, government department, or "conduct involved in an interstate or foreign communication".
Subsection (3) applies to government departments and agencies.
Subsection (4) applies to knowing intent to defraud.
Subsection (5) applies to protected computers where certain actions are carried out.
Subsection (6) applies to trafficking of passwords and the like.
Subsection (7) applies to extortion of money or other things of value.

Of these, only (4) and (5) seem like that might be applicable.

Subsection (4), however, doesn't apply if the person doesn't obtain anything of value, or the thing obtained is use of the computer and such use is not more than $5,000 worth in any one-year period. So this doesn't seem to apply in Conservapedia's case, at least not for any vandalism that has occurred so far or is likely to occur.

Subsection (5) is where it became less clear to me, at least initially. It is divided into two sub-sub-sections. The first (A) specifies what is done and the second (B) specifies what the result is.

Sub-sub-section (A), in three different ways, basically says that the law is applicable if someone knowingly/intentionally causes "damage" to a "protected" computer.

However, according to section (e), a "protected" computer is one used by or for a financial institution or the government or one that is used on interstate or foreign commerce or communication.

Because I can't see how Conservapedia can claim to be a "protected" computer according to section (e), subsection (5) appears to also be inapplicable, in which case, no section of this statute seems applicable.

Now, because of the legalese, perhaps I've missed something, in which case I invite Andy to point out what I've understood incorrectly or to point out which section(s), subsection(s), and sub-sub-section(s) are applicable.

Philip J. Rayment 22:02, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Thank you for posing a more thorough analysis. What I found was the same- the law applies to "protected" computers, which a wiki isn't. Umlaut 07:23, 2 March 2009 (EST)

And a wiki isn't used in international communication? One would have to find the many amendments and definitions of the applicable laws. In any event, this is another liberal deceit, a distraction from our purpose here, which is building an encyclopedia, NOT discussing if common vandals and cyber terrorists will be punished. Umlaut, you are in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments with your endless talk, talk, talk. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, or busy yourself elsewhere. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 07:39, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Whether vandalism and "cyber terrorism" to this or any other wiki or site is illegal is not the question (though I think it isn't). My point was that 18 USC § 1030 appears to be an inappropriate citation. Pointing out such an inaccuracy (or perceived inaccuracy) is certainly a contribution to Conservapedia. Umlaut 08:02, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

Contents

Archives

Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable"

Two questions

Celebrating the Death of Inevitability!

Suggestion

Please list banned sites

Amendment Recommendation

Comments Section

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Popular Links

donate

Edit Console