Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − Line 24:
Line 23: + + + + + +
Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia? (view source)
Revision as of 16:37, March 19, 2007
, 16:37, March 19, 2007jumping right in!
I bring this up as a topic of discussion, not a criticism. I wonder if ASchlafly needs to consider reconciling the goals of this site in regards to its format. A wiki is an inherently democratic format...anyone can contribute, and errors are theoretically diluted as more and more people become involved. Over time, experts' edits will outnumber those of vandals and non-experts. The stated goals here, based on what is explicitly written and what has taken place in edits, appears to be less democratic, with an agenda being set from the top down. ASchlafly insists on expert opinion, but when it disagrees with his worldview, he edits articles which fall out of his own expertise. I do not mean in any way to impugn his morals or objectives, but perhaps a wiki is not the best format for him to accomplish his needs. If he wants an online extension of his textbooks, wiki is definitely a poor format to use. IMHO.
I bring this up as a topic of discussion, not a criticism. I wonder if ASchlafly needs to consider reconciling the goals of this site in regards to its format. A wiki is an inherently democratic format...anyone can contribute, and errors are theoretically diluted as more and more people become involved. Over time, experts' edits will outnumber those of vandals and non-experts. The stated goals here, based on what is explicitly written and what has taken place in edits, appears to be less democratic, with an agenda being set from the top down. ASchlafly insists on expert opinion, but when it disagrees with his worldview, he edits articles which fall out of his own expertise. I do not mean in any way to impugn his morals or objectives, but perhaps a wiki is not the best format for him to accomplish his needs. If he wants an online extension of his textbooks, wiki is definitely a poor format to use. IMHO.
Id be interested in comments/responses, and will also post this on my discussion page.
Id be interested in comments/responses, and will also post this on my discussion page.
::: Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy. Wikipedia has complex, senseless, and arbitrarily enforced rules. Check out [[Bias in Wikipedia]] to see the result. We're like the constitutional republic of the United States. Wikipedia is like the French Revolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Folks, true Wiki's have simple, clear rules. Otherwise it is a mobocracy. Wikipedia has complex, senseless, and arbitrarily enforced rules. Check out [[Bias in Wikipedia]] to see the result. We're like the constitutional republic of the United States. Wikipedia is like the French Revolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::May I butt in? I'm new here, but "old" at Wikipedia.
::::I can agree with the "complex" part, but the rules are not entirely senseless. One rule I like is [[Wikipedia:Attribution]], which requires contributors to provide verifiable references for 'facts' which aren't common knowledge or are matters of dispute.
::::Enforcement of rules is another matter. I'm "on probation" because of supposedly "tendentious" edits on some issues which are hotly debated by liberals and conservatives, but I haven't appealed that decision. I'd rather just become more congenial. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)