Difference between revisions of "Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?"

Latest revision as of 14:24, April 22, 2014

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

Frequently items are posted to the "In the News" section of the Main Page which, while they may be interesting and informative, do not fit the clearly stated purpose of this section. This occurrence has led to a significant amount of friction which has then erupted into an increasing number of arguments on Talk:Main Page and elsewhere. As a proposed solution to this, I put the following question to the users of this site:

Does the Conservapedia Main Page need to be redesigned in order to include a separate "In the Blogs" or "Around the Web" section where non-news items can be posted?

Yes

Many other pages around the web successfully display what is going on in many different areas of the Internet but are generally quite careful to keep the straight news separate from the blogs and clearly label each. This not only adds to the professional appearance of the site's main page, but is also the most responsible way to go as clearly separates hard news from blogs which may contain any imaginable blend of facts and personal opinion. Fnarrow 01:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Yes. There are many things happening all over the internet that may be interesting, entertaining, or informative, but do not fit neatly into the definition of "news". And there's no reason that space to highlight such items cannot be made on the main page. --DonnyC 02:06, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

No

The site is what it is. Of course there are going to be a lot of articles and blogs referring to the decline of evolution, homosexuality and atheism because that is what the site is about. No need to change a part of the site (perhaps the only) that functions exactly as is intended. Note that it is not intended that everyone who edits at CP, or even its administrators (or owner!) will agree with everything that is posted there, but it is to generate interest and discussion on topical points. --DamianJohn 05:32, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Blogs, advertisements and other non-news items should not be included on the main page. Similarly, one blog should not be shamelessly promoted under the pretext of being "current news items." The main page should feature content from within CP, not other blogs. Wschact 05:42, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. The main problem with the main page content is that it's a collection of fringe opinion where it is not blatantly false. An encyclopedia should at the very least attempt to publish only established facts and defensible opinion. --TonySidaway 22:37, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

I feel like I might not have done a great job of phrasing the initial question...

• DamianJohn The question isn't about agreement or disagreement or even the topics covered in the posts... it's about the definition, provided at the top of MPR, of what should be posted there... specifically, "News the MSM isn't covering". Blogs with a person or group of people's opinions is not news, it's commentary and editorializing.
• Wschact and TonySidaway, on a personal level, I agree with your statements here 100% and if it was up to me they wouldn't be appearing on the main page at all. However, as witnessed by the repeated dismissal and ignoring of anyone who makes these suggestions on Main Page and elsewhere, this clearly isn't an option that any of the sysops are open to. Therefore, I'm merely suggesting that if they're going to put it on the main page no matter what, it should at least go in a section that isn't labeled as "news." Fnarrow 01:17, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Regardless of my opinion on the above question, these are other Main Page changes which I would like to see happen (Please include a DETAILED description of your proposed changes)

The main page contributions should to reflect the full range of editors who work together to make this site run. As of the last 500 edits, 7 users make all of the contributions to the MPR news sections with 92.6% being made by only 3. While there is a section on the main talk page for suggesting news stories, it seems to be little known and even less used. This has led to frustration/confusion among editors (See here) and even a very well respected and experienced SYSOP in another case (as witnessed here). I don't know whether the rotating committee, a more visible "suggestion box" or something else entirely is the best option for getting a wider array of important stories on the Main Page, but I feel it's clear that something needs to be done. Fnarrow 01:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

I have made a proposal to create a three-editor committee for editing the main page. You can comment on it here. Thanks, Wschact 05:44, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

The main page is largely rubbish, including links to some of the most numbingly stupid articles and links to really poorly researched blogs. Doesn't any other editor feel ashamed that science is routinely degraded while silly nonsense from old books is treated as unassailable fact? Enough of the stupid! A detailed plan for improving the main page is not difficult to compose: remove it, it's a disgrace. --TonySidaway 23:38, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

Tony, so I'm guessing you're not on the edge of you're seat waiting to find out exactly how 2013 is going to be a BAD year for Darwinism? --DonnyC 23:55, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

I am on the edge of my seat waiting to find out how CP can be made a place that will be attractive to readers and to new editors. The cost of the current Main page is too high to allow this to continue. Wschact 00:34, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

TonySidaway, It's atheist/liberals who degrade science by trying to make it subservient to their atheist and/or Darwinist religions. Second, you are just mad that God made Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve. That is why you are mad at the book of Genesis. It points out your unnatural lifestyle. And medical science points out how unhealthy the homosexual life is. See: Homosexuality and health. Homosexual activists try to distort what medical science says about the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle and try to declare the lifestyle healthy which it is not. See: Homosexual activists' ideology and loss of life. Conservative 08:36, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

DonnyC, one thing for sure, it is a very BAD year for you being able to respond to reasonable criticisms of your Darwinist religion. See: DonnyC dodged this rejoinder. Upon your return and after your probationary 3 month period, you must respond tothis rejoinder should you want to post to me on the main page talk page again. Conservative 08:45, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Maybe

The tentacles of a certain editor are long! I would have no problem with a large, prominent "blog" link on the mainpage but what is news should be clarified. If/when The QE Blogspot successfully distributes its textbooks then good, that is news. When Shockofgod says something slightly different from last week, that is not. There have been some rather large news stories in the last few weeks with The Boston Bombing, Baroness Thatcher dying, North Korea rattling its very dangerous sabre, and all these events were covered well. But these stories are drowned out by articles stating that cowardly, fat, geeky, can't get the girls atheist refuses to debate macho, healthy, babe magnet creationist. Some other blogs I don't object to. It's nice to read the wisdom of Bishop Bert which is occasionally posted, Agree or not with Conservative News and Views it usually has something informative to say so I am split on the issue--Patmac 00:00, 16 May 2013 (EDT)