Conservapedia talk:Guidelines

NOTE: Earlier discussions on the various sections of this page were made on the following pages:

• Attribution
• Civility
• Reliability
• Sources
• Teamwork

Tidying up

After discussion with some other administrators, I'm doing some tidying up of guidelines on other pages, in most cases redirecting them to this page. Philip J. Rayment 07:45, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Copying

What about quotations to illustrate a point or position? And how about fair use? I've started countless articles by quoting some liberal position about, e.g., feminism or global warming. --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:06, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

These guidelines need improvement and clarification

For example, for "Sources" it stated:

We should not allow any and all citations to newspaper stories. Journalistic opinions are not authorities, and journalists are not authorities on scientific issues. It is better to cite the scientific article directly.

But if the article refers to the opinion as an opinion and not a hard fact, shouldn't that be allowed? Jinxmchue 02:13, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

And does this mean any citations to a newspaper story, or only in regards to scientific issues? --Jareddr 13:29, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

What happens if you are writing on a subject that is not scientific? How are we supposed, for example, to write about a recent event without using newspapers? Daphnea 20:07, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Attribution Section

Very curious about the lead example. I find it unnecessarily pugnacious.

There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "All living species of animals evolved from earlier species" and saying "Most atheist biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species".

English teachers call that attribution.

There are many religious scientists, including Christian Conservatives, who accept evolution as a fact. The above example is precisely equivalent to:

There's a difference between stating flatly that "Heaven is up" and reporting that "Christians believe Heaven is above Earth." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "God created the Heaven and the Earth" and saying "Most unsaved Jews believe God created the Heaven and the Earth."

The phrase "unsaved Jews" is, while technically accurate, provocative. Similarly, the full sentence, while also accurate, is incomplete, as Christians also believe God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Similarly, the example given in "Attribution" is both provocative (atheist biologists) and incomplete. A better example would be, simply, "Most biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species." There are trained biologists who do not accept this, but they are in the minority.

Since this is a guideline page, I don't think I should edit it, rather than bring this up to those in charge. But I don't like it the way it is. It's not the Christian way to say it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Encinocathy (talk)

I prefer it the way it is (I wrote it), but I'm not denying that your alternative ways of putting it would also be correct. However, I reject that your revised example is precisely equivalent. A closer equivalent to the second one would be "Most Christians believe God created the Heaven and the Earth". That doesn't sound so odd, does it? Yet it omits non-Christian Jews. It's a closer equivalent because it is referring to the single largest group that believes this, rather than a much smaller group. Similarly with "Most atheist biologists": atheist biologists would be the largest single group of biologists, plus it is atheism on which this belief is based, so it also hints at the basis for the belief. Philip J. Rayment 01:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

90/10 rule

What is Aschlafly's ratio in regards to talk pages/actual edits? OtherSide 20:21, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

it would surprise me if it did not meet the 90/10 rule, he does a lot of reverts. --Brendanw 23:50, 16 November 2008 (EST)

I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but my problem with the 90/10 rule is that so often what seems to be an innocuous edit is reverted, requiring a lengthy discussion. This often means I must either: (a) let it lie, and therefore not make any useful contribution, or (b) debate the issue, thereby skewing my talk : edit ratio!

I'm not talking about vandalism or provocation, either. I mean definitions of the 'young adult' demographic in publishing and redirects for The Metropolitan Museum Of Art. The mind boggles. Scoresby 21:44, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

• Well being since you are a shining example of people who make socks to troll us, to insert false information, I am leaving your post here as an example of just what liars liberals are.....that they will use any pretext to try to disrupt with silly clap trap. Those whose job it is to proffer instruction to editors, to answer questions, cannot, should not, and it is irrational to even suggest they should not be exempt from the 90/10 "rule" which isn't, really. It is a guideline. Godspeed to you! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 23:17, 29 June 2009 (EDT)

Sources

Lately I've been seeing a lot of sketchy sources hanging around. For instance, the other day I found a quotation used to prove a point in an article which was taken from the comment on a blog article. I've also seen sources rejected out of hand for no real reason and other dubious sources used without any second thought. Lastly, I think we need to decide how and when to use other wikis as sources; there are numerous examples of this all over the site.

While I think the current wording of the "Sources" section was good at the time it was written, it has become necessary to find something else. I don't think we should say "source X is always out and source Y is always in", but clear, general guidelines without too much room for debate would clearly do the project a good service. HelpJazz 13:02, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I had a second thought. Often times a genralized statement is "proved" by citing one example of the statement. For example (I'm making this up) one might say "Conservatives are richer than liberals" and as the reference might show an article about some rich conservative. I don't know if this directly falls under "sources", but I think this issue should be discussed in the Guidlines (if not the Commandments). HelpJazz 14:44, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

I like the recent change by Karajou. I would love to see my comments above (which I forgot I had written until just a second ago) integrated as well. I think the comment about newspaper's reliability is interesting, but I think that blogs are of even lower reliability. Newspapers lose readers (and therefore money) if they consistently give false reports; bloggers are held to no standards, and almost none are used as a primary source of income. HelpJazz 21:48, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Partisanship of Sources

This sentence "It's typical of partisans to strengthen their criticisms of a target by claiming a source who is supposedly loyal to the target," doesn't make any sense. What does it mean to "claim a source"? Looks like a clause is missing or the "who" is unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StephM (talk)

Sorry if this information is posted somewhere else, but would someone in the know mind posting a list of reliable, non-partisan sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JakeW (talk)

90/10 rule (2)

I know its just a nitpick, but there is a link that section which leads back to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edgar16 (talk)

Fixed, thanks. Philip J. Rayment 03:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Proposed Template Guideline Amendment

Where it says that templates should be immediately protected, I can understand that this is to reduce vandalism. However, due to the volatile (sp?) nature of most rosters, I would like to request that all roster templates be unprotected, unless vandalized, so that all changes can be made at the appropriate time. I make this request now because most leagues are either in or getting into their offseasons. Thank you, JY23 10:07, 25 February 2009 (EST)

Anatomical blunder

The humerus is in the arm, so it isn't the thigh bone. Unless this is a deliberate joke (in which case I'll get my coat, although I don't find it all that "humerus") it should be changed quickly, as this is one of the first pages new users read. I'd do it myself but the page is rightly locked.--CPalmer 14:09, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

• Thanks! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 19:46, 6 July 2009 (EDT)

Request for Cleanup of Article Mainspace

I'd like to request that administrators, when they get a chance, remember to take a look at Category:Speedy deletion candidates - a category given to pages with the "speedy" Template:db tag. Thanks!--IDuan 11:41, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

Typoes

For the Administrators section, it should be protect/unprotect pages, not protect/unprotected pages.--James Wilson 11:38, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Also, in the Promotions subsection, it should say nominations are not accepted, nominations not accepted.--James Wilson 11:46, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Revert Wars page proposal

What about a page discussing Revert wars for policy? I'd like to see pages discussing what exactly blocking can be done for so there's no confusion. I will write up proposed text here to be altered as needed. But I do think it's necessary so people know what the rules are exactly, and don't violate them.

Proposed Page:

"Revert Wars are caused by re-adding material that was previously deleted. Rather than undoing the deletion, discuss the proposed material on the relevant talk page instead. Andy Schlafly (ASchlafly) is the site's owner, and his reversions are final. Attempts to Revert War in such an instance are taken very seriously."

Right now, it seems like there's some confusion about blocking policy and what exactly constitutes a good block, how long it should be, and what the Appeals process is. I know I'm confused about it. I think the best way to ensure fairness is spell out what exactly a block is for as opposed to a permanent ban, and what the specific criteria are that determine the length of a block. Otherwise, if we can't show a warning was in place and the rules were clearly stated, people are just going to say blocks aren't fair, and they'd be right.

--Jzyehoshua 13:16, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

90/10 Rule Should Be Changed Or Deleted

I think the 90/10 rule needs either serious clarification or to be deleted altogether. Recently it led to a case where a user (AcomaMagic) was banned for making 3 talk page comments out of 4 total. Apparently, the rule can be used to ban someone at any point, even if they have only made a single edit. There's a huge potential for abuse with this rule, as it allows banning for any reason or no reason if a user makes only 1 or 2 talk page edits that a moderator disagrees with. In this case, AcomaMagic did not even exceed 90% talk page edits, and had made just 75% talk page edits.

I would support replacing this rule with another stating that banning is allowed for changing Conservapedia pages to support evolution or other liberal agendas. Because that's what AcomaMagic was really banned for, making a change supportive of evolution. The policy could say something like "Support for such liberal agendas as evolution should be discussed on debate topics, not on article talk pages, and articles should not be changed to reflect such changes." At least that way it will be clear to everyone what the standard is, no liberal talking points made in articles or on article pages.

But this 90/10 rule is senseless. It can be used to ban anybody at any time by anyone for any reason. It needs to either go or undergo a serious revamp, like defining how many total edits are required for rule violation. I think at least 50 edits should be required before the rule can be violated, otherwise it allows banning new users if they say anything that's disagreed with. Clearly 90% is not even a line in the sand right now either, as the aforementioned user was banned for 75% talk page edits over a 4-edit period. That's ridiculous. If the site wants to ban users for pro-liberal viewpoints or page changes that's fine, but at least clearly state it in policy. That still leaves no explanation for a silly rule like the 90/10, which is acting as a catch-all to allow moderators to ban whoever they feel like. --Joshua Zambrano 07:57, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

It also needs to be clearly specified the rules do not apply to debate topics. There's no point in having a debate section if users can be banned for discussing there. Edits made to the debate section should not count at all. It makes zero sense to say we want to discourage the incessant talking of other sites when we have a debate topics section that other wikis don't have! And if we allow banning for opposing points of view in the debate topics section, then it makes the debate section pointless. What point is there in having a debate section where only one side is allowed to present their points? That is ridiculous. I debate constantly from socially conservative points of view, but there's no point in debating only those you agree with, you never learn anything or say anything that needs to be heard. You'll never convince anyone allowing only one side to present their arguments. --Joshua Zambrano 08:02, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Proposed Rewrite of 90/10 Rule

I propose rewriting the section as follows - proposed changes are bolded:

“

The 90/10 rule, unique to Conservapedia, authorizes the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive article talk page,[2] bickering, last wordism, and other unproductive activity. Specifically, as stated in the Conservapedia:Commandments since soon after the formation of Conservapedia: "Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account after 50 total edits to articles and talk pages (excluding debate pages and user pages, but not user talk pages)." The 90/10 Rule applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Inordinate amount of talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk, as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn. Users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. But no project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Discussion of liberal viewpoints should occur on debate topics, not on articles and their talk pages. Users who edit articles and their talk pages should be productive by the 50 edit mark (excluding debate topic edits, which exist to allow disagreement from opposing views). Edits made to debate topics do not count toward the 50 total edits, nor do they count as talk page edits. Edits made to one's own user pages do not count either, although edits to user talk pages do. The 90/10 Rule is remarkably adept at discouraging and eliminating the mobocracy or talk pollution that runs rampant on other sites, such as Wikipedia. Implementation is simple and application is swift.

”

I also propose a new section for "Point of View" as follows, with any other key issues added as necessary:

“

Conservapedia operates from a conservative point of view, specifically a Young Earth Creationist, pro-heterosexual marriage, Pro-Life point of view. Articles and article talk pages should therefore avoid support for Evolution, homosexuality, and abortion, given the site's purpose. Those who wish to discuss contrasting views should do so in the debate section.

”

--Joshua Zambrano 08:32, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

I think it should be very clear what banning is allowed for and then we should stick to it. But right now the 90/10 rule is far too ambiguous and vague, as evidenced by the recent ban on AcomaMagic for 4 total edits, 75% of them to talk pages. Clearly the rules aren't written clearly enough right now for people to know what a bannable offense is, and definitely should be updated. --Joshua Zambrano 08:47, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

I believe the 90/10 rule is intentionally vague right now so Sysops and blocking editors don't have to nitpick and count edits. If the vast majority of a user's recent edits are unproductive talk, they can be blocked. But this shouldn't be abused, for example, by giving exceedingly long blocks to new users who have not broken any other rule. This guideline gives a lot of discretion to the Sysops. Whether some of the Sysops around here are capable of such discretion is another debate entirely...

Also, adding in the part about 50 edits is probably not a great idea. It would just give 50 free edits to users who come here to argue without trying to improve the project, even if they're not trolling or breaking any other rule. But along these lines, I think Sysops need to do a better job of assuming good faith, because every time a user criticizes something on this site, they're not necessarily trolling or trying to cause trouble. --Randall7 14:53, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

Why should this even be a concern? We have a debate section for a reason, right? So those who disagree can discuss the issues, right? If they want to disagree, as long as they do that in the debate topics specifically, I don't see why that should be an issue. Sometimes those who are most in disagreement have objections they want resolved before becoming highly productive editors. That was how it was for me when I came, actually. I talked a lot because I was trying to get a feel for what Conservapedia was like and whether this was a place for me to try and help improve. I had concerns about the policy. Only through talking to Conservative did I start to believe in the site, and made a gut decision to begin contributing. My point is that disagreement is often the first step for editors to decide whether or not to contribute. Disagreement may not indicate "trolling" but unresolved concerns about the site that are barriers to deciding to contribute.

I think you're right that a big problem is assuming good faith. I see a very quick trigger finger on the part of certain moderators who look for any reason to block and ban. The same reason I dislike Obama's support of the NDAA is the same reason I'm concerned here. I quote the founding fathers on religious freedom and human rights all the time. So I can't help but notice when users are treated unfairly by those same standards here on the site. The policies should be specific so users know what the standard is. There is way too much room for discretion in blocking and banning right now, and frankly I think it is hurting Conservapedia's reputation. --Joshua Zambrano 15:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)