Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Logo

2007-03-14T08:21:35Z

Js:

== Before Making Your Own Logo Read This ==

The "rules" for creating the logo are as follows:

# The logo has to be 135 x 135 pixels
# The logo cannot utilize a globe as this would be far to close to Wikipedia's logo
# The logo needs to "blend" well with the rest of the site (this is more of a good thing than a rule but your logo will probably not be used if it does not)
# It would be best for any "background" sections of the photo to be transparent

== Conservapedia Logo ==

*Also, I meant to ask you about the logo yesterday and completely forgot. I have fooled around making a couple logos but am not very happy with the results. I am assuming the colors should be blue, white and other neutral colors or maybe red (to match the featured aritcle and news headers). Let me know if you have a particular color scheme in mind. I'm also trying to decide what the logo should be based up, a cross or the letter C for example. So if you have any imput or ideas on this topic let me know. Sorry about this being so long!--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**'''Reply:''' I don't have any particular color scheme in mind. However, the colors of the logo need to blend well with the rest of the site. Post anything you have on here and we can improve them. Also, I came up with the logo below but Mr. Schlafly and I both agree that it is a little too republican. Even so, the colors and the "dullness" of this image are sortof what we are looking for.

:: [[Image:Logo_Concept.png]]

:: If anyone else has a good idea for a logo feel free to post it here. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:24, 5 January 2007 (EST)
:: I don't like the above one. Republican and conservative are not the same thing. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)
::: Nor do I, for three reasons:
# We are not the house Wiki of the [[Republican Party]] of the [[United States]].
## As a corollary to the above, the Republican Party owns that image and we have no right to use it.
# Many who call themselves "Republicans" are not conservative by any reasonable definition of the word.
# Many conservatives have abandoned the Republican Party in favor of a [[third party]]. Shall we, then, leave them out?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:15, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*Here is my favorite one:

:[[Image:LOGO3.jpg|200px]]

:There is something weird about it, but I can't quite tell what it is. Also, it doesn't say Conservapedia on it, but I can change that if you want me to. Please critique it, and I will improve it with your suggestions.

:Thank you!

:--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:01, 5 January 2007 (EST)

:PS: It doesn't really have that white background. It is supposed to be just the circle. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

* Here is my logo suggestion. I borrowed the C from sharon.
:[[Image:Conservalogo.JPG]]

:[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

**Good work Ben! I have two comments about your logo: This may just be me, but the ovals sort of look like orbits of electrons around the nucleus in the bohr model of the atom, implying that Conservapedia is a scientific encyclopedia, while we really have content on all topics. The image looks a little "digital", meaning you can see the pixels creating that jagged look around the edges of the letters and lines. You might be able to fix this by adjusting your program to make higher quality images with more pixels.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 17:56, 5 January 2007 (EST)
**Ben, it looks like Saturn. -Sarah
**Thank you sharon, I agree on the first point; my original intention was to place the "Conservapedia" on top of one of those oval maps of the world. i could't do this because the only artistic medium i have on my comuter is paintbrush. That is also the reason why it looks "digital". [[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]
**Wow Sharon, that was deep :)
**Ben, I like your idea about putting "Conservapedia" on top of a world map. I started to mess around with it a little and like the results so far. I will post it on here once it is presentable.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:39, 6 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedia logo idea -2.JPG]]
This is my logo suggestion --JessicaS 11:41, 7 January 2007 (EST)

*Jessica, your logo is nice. I would suggest that you give the letters a little more room at the edges. Also, you might try cropping it to a square with rounded corners. Here is what I came up with based on Ben's excellent idea:
[[Image:Another_logo.jpg|300px]]
As I said before, I really like this one. Thank you for the great idea Ben! Let me know what you think of it.--[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:24, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I think the background earth is too vivid, it should be maybe light blue and green.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:49, 7 January 2007 (EST)

OK. I'll do that in a minute. [[User:SharonS|Sharon]]

I really don't like either of the two "globe" logos. We are an AMERICAN encyclopedia. If you want to put something behind the logo put a map of America. Also, Wikipedia uses a globe, we don't want something so similar... definitely no globe [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:56, 7 January 2007 (EST)

True, the globe thing is a little to close to Wikipedia's logo. My next one will be "Conservapedia" over a blue and green map of America. ~ Sharon

Actually, now that I think of it, although we do favor the American spelling of words, we have contributors from all around the world. Just something to think about. ~ Sharie

I noticed something interesting about Wikipedia's logo. It reflects their mission statement "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" it the way it has a missing puzzle piece. I wonder if we could come up with something that reflects "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust". If anyone has any ideas put them on here. ~ Sharie

'''REPLY''': Yes, it is true that we favor American spellings for words and that we have contributors worldwide, but this is beside the point. Conservapedia is American, unlike Wikipedia which even though it is located in America, does not support America openly. It is very disappointing that this America-based website does not show its patriotism openly. Conservapedia will always show that it is proud to be American. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:26, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*I have mixed feelings on this issue. Yes, we do want to support America, but we also do not want to exclude other countries from Conservapedia. If I lived in Ireland or some other country and stumbled upon Conservapedia one day and saw a map of America on the logo, I would conclude that Conservapedia was an American encyclopedia, which is true. But, I think that the map of America would cause me to conclude that contributions from other countries were not wanted. We certainly do not want to exclude people from other countries in this way. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Comment''' I think that this particular logo (above) is the best so far.

As to the little debate you are having, I think that a globe is a very appropriate encyclopedia logo; we hope to have facts in our encyclopedia that relate to the '''''entire world''''', not just America. The fact that we require american spellings does not mean we only want information about america. ''The logo should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.''

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:53, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservalogo.gif]]

How about something like this

The background looks too dull along with that red color, which really hurts my eyes, but it will probably look much better after some color changes. ~ Sharon

Or This
[[Image:Conservalogo2.gif]]

That looks much better! The other map looked like goggles or something. ~ Sharon

These look pretty good Sharon. However, remember that we want the logo to "blend" well with the rest of the site. These logos would kind of clash with the other colors... if you know what I mean. Sorry for being so negative ;) [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 17:28, 7 January 2007 (EST)
*Oh, those are actually Tim's. I just commented on them. I was instaling all my graphics designs software on this computer and am going to make some more logos tonight. Also, don't worry about being negative in your comments. If everyone tries to be nice all the time, nothing gets done. Since we are all friends, contructive criticism won't hurt anybody's feelings and will help us come out with a really excellent logo. ~ Sharie

[[Image:CLOGO3.gif]]
Or this

Here is another logo in softer colors with soft edges. I also changed the fonts around a little, but can put them back the other way if you don't like these.

[[Image:Yet_Another_Logo.jpg|300px]]

I know it still needs quite a bit of work so please critique it! --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I changed my mind. The more I see, the less I like the idea of the logo being based on a map or globe. I think something made up of several different pieces that reflect our "mission," including things like a a cross, an american flag, a bible, etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:21, 8 January 2007 (EST)

How about something like this:
[[Image:Conservapidialogo01.JPG]]

I like it! Once again, the colors are a little too bright (on my monitor at any rate), but it is a good start. I really like the American flag in it. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 10:51, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I think that the bright colors are good. It may be a bit much when you see it big like that, but if it is small and in the corner of the screen it will help it be more noticable. You don't want the logo to blend so much that it "hides" in the corner. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:07, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* I still like the other one better (see my last comment). If we do end up using this one, you need to make the "conservapedia" alot bigger. The caption will be almost illegible when this logo is small enough to fit in the corner.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)

* P.s. I would further complain that the cross does is just plain brown and does not fit the picture; Maybe you should paste one on the flag that is slightly more detailed. also I don't like having the american flag at all; The logo, as I said before, should be a reflection of what type of information we offer.

I disagree: The logo should not reflect all of the information that we have to offer, but the difference between what we have to offer and what other people have to offer. It should reflect our point of view. Nobody is going to look at a logo and say "Oh look, an american flag, they must only have information about america." The logo reflects Christianity and Patriotism, not that we only have information about america and christianity. Even if we did want to do it your way the map would still be a bad idea because it implies geography. The logo I posted is just a concept, not a final product. it took me about 5 minutes. We would certainly want a more detailed cross, and bigger type.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 11:29, 8 January 2007 (EST)

I never thought about the world map implying geography. Interesting point. Maybe we are putting too much importance on the logo. Although it should look good and reflect the mission of Conservapedia, I wonder if visitors to the site are really going to give the logo much more than a quick glance. I for one don't ever really pay much attention to a site's logo. I think I am going to do something similar to what you did for my next logo. ~ Sharon

: Tim, I agree. Yes, we are getting pretty hung up on this issue. The facts are that we can't use a globe because it's way to close to Wikipedia's logo and that we'll always scare a small amount of people away depending on the logo we have. Even so, this should not intimidate us from placing what we are about in the logo. For now, let's just keep putting out ideas that don't incorporate a globe. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:48, 8 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:CLOGOOO1.JPG]]

Tim, I took yours and edited it some. What do you think? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:15, 8 January 2007 (EST)
[[Image:Cross_flag_mine.png|150px]]

It is pretty good, I think that the color of the lettering needs to change, Dark Green maybe? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:28, 8 January 2007 (EST)

*That looks good Philip. I think the whole thing is a little fuzzy. That's OK for the background, but the lettering needs to be nice and crisp. Tim, I don't think that dark green lettering fits with the color scheme of this logo. Here is my version of this logo:

[[Image:Logo4.jpg|300px]]

Let me know what you think. Oh, and tell me if you want me to lay off the cross-in-C thing. Nobody commented on it so I just figured I'd keep using it, but if you don't like it please don't hesitate to tell me. I like this patriotic theme! It makes me think of the Fourth of July. :P ~ Sharon

'''Just Wondering'''
Does the logo have to include the word conservapedia? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:54, 8 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply''' I don't think so, but I usually include it because the logo doesn't seem to look complete without it. ~ Sharon

I was thinking that we could keep the logo seperate from the word. That way we can have the word above it or next to it or something, or we could decide to not have the word anywhere near it.
--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:00, 8 January 2007 (EST)

That would probably look better. I will see if I can come up with anything. --[[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 07:03, 9 January 2007 (EST)

I should have mentioned this earlier, but the logo needs to be 135x135 pixels. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:14, 9 January 2007 (EST)

OK! ~ Sharon

How's This

[[Image:Conservapedia.JPG|Thumb|135Px]]

--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]] 22:21, 15 January 2007 (EST)

*I think we have decided not to use a globe on our logo because it is too much like Wikipedia's logo. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 06:38, 16 January 2007 (EST)
**Yes, we did. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 10:03, 16 January 2007 (EST)

[[Image:ConservapediaLogo.gif]]

It's simple, but I think it is pretty cool. Tell me what you think....I can always modify it: slower, faster, different effect. [[User:David R|David R]]
*David, that's pretty cool but I think that anything animated would be very distracting when someone is trying to edit/read content on the site. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:36, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*I agree. It was just an attempt at sparking a little creativity among all these crosses and globes. [[User:David R|David R]]

**Um, just a quick point here: while using the Cross is nice, you're going to have problems with the conservative Jews that may wish to use the site. Perhaps we should find a completely new idea that doesn't make our fellow ''conservatives'' uncomfortable. --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 22:26, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*** Well, considering the project is officialy Christian and conservative... I do however understand how such editors might feel more uncomfortable editing a project that used an avowedly Christian symbol. I'd be more concerned about the Church/State implications of such a symbol, but that might just be me. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[Image:ConservapediaLogo2.jpg]]

There you go...135x135, mainly transparent, good color theme. Comments or suggestions would be appreciated. [[User:David R|David R]]

*That looks really good! I didn't realize it was here until now, or I would have commented sooner. What does everyone else think? I think it looks good enough to use right away. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 14:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)
** I agree with Sharon, this is a good one. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I like it --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 15:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)

*Great! As soon as Philip and Mr. Schlafly are back from economics, we can get their opinions. If they like, maybe Philip can figure out how to put it up for us! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 15:25, 1 March 2007 (EST)

As I said on the Talk page, I like it too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:46, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't like it at all. Although the general idea is ok, it's not professional. Frankly, it looks like it was done on Paint. And the first thought that came to my mind when I saw it was the Fourth of July.

[[User:DeborahB.|~Deborah~]]

:Paint Shop Pro, thank you very much. :) What do you think would make it look more professional? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:22, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::I'm not quite sure how David could make it any more "professional". I think it looks awesome now. Also, this is an American encyclopedia, so if the logo reminds you of the Fourth of July, that's a good thing. If there is a lot of controversy over using this logo, perhaps we can take a vote. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:30, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, I could draw it a suit, tie, and tophat. Now ''that's'' professional! :P. But, seriously, this logo will be an image of what Conservapedia stands for. '''Any''' and all suggestions are welcomed. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 19:42, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: WOW!!!! I just discovered this page. These logos are all fantastic!!!! Please pick and implement whatever you think is best! We can always improve it in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[image:Oldwikipedialogo.png|135px|right|Wikipedia logo, circa 2002]]
:::::I'm a little concerned about transparency. You posted it as a .jpg and .jpg doesn't allow for transparency. I hope you did the original in a format like .gif or .png which does, and kept the original. If not, you may have lost the transparency for good, because not only does .jpg not have transparency, after you do the conversion to .jpg not all the "white" areas are actually pure white, so it's not easy to make them transparent again.

[[image:logowithborder.png|135px|left]]
:::::I'm not sure the transparency is really all that important, though. One thing you might try is the effect adding a simple one-pixel black border, and see if that gives a crisper appearance against the greyish background. Just my $0.02.

:::::But really, it doesn't matter, just do something. Wikipedia's early logo didn't look as good as this one--at right is Wikipedia's logo circa 2002--and it can always be changed later. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:52, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::::I agree, we can always change the logo easily in the future. There is really no excuse not to have one. David's latest logo has been approved by most of the regular users. If Philip thinks its alright too, then I think we should go ahead and use it! ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 19:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Yeah, I'd like to see how it looks as the logo. If it doesn't look good, then I can make the necessary adjustments or we can just scrap it and go down a different route. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:03, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::::::::I don't really like David's logo with the border. It seems to me that it boxes it in too much and prevents it from fading smoothly into the background. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I just notices something about Dave's logo. If the flag is hanging (which it appears to be doing), shouldn't the stars be on the opposite side (the left side)? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:12, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::It could go either way. It just depends which side of the flag you're on. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 22:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I just submitted some more entries on my talk page. Let me know what you guys think about them. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:29, 1 March 2007 (EST)

It can be seen either way. Traditionally, it is seen the way I drew it...rotated 90 degrees clockwise, of course. If you would like it on the left, I can do that. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:18, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: No, I am positive now that it can only be flown with the stars on the left. See [http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html this]. Rule 14,8 esp. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 23:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:Ughh, Philip, getting so technical. Fine. Would you like me to switch it? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:18, 1 March 2007 (EST)

[[Image:Conservapedialogo7.png|135px|left‎]]

This was just a hypothetical draft, if people like the colors/imagery then say and I'll develop it more. I'm happy to contribute --[[User:Gaijin|Gaijin]] 15:52, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==My version==
[[Image:Conserva_flag.JPG|135px|left‎]]
Based on the "C" logo above, and a flag image I found online. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I used Windows Paint to do it in all of 12 minutes. Personally, I would keep the flag background, and transform the "C" logo into something more "crystalized", aka Windows Vista, and have it or both stand out in a 3-D effect. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I like it --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 00:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Another one==
[[Image:Conservaflags.JPG|135px|left‎]]
Logo has the naval signal flags spelling "DUTY", from Admiral Nelson's famous signal on HMS Victory at Trafalgar. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest using the Conservapedia written over the old map of the world....no need to put in a cross or the US flag or anything like that.....this is supposed to be for all conservatives around the world....like this ....[[Image:Conservalogo.gif]]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-14T06:54:32Z

Js: /* Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Possibly this could be handled by using the American version, Hapsburg, with a note saying that the Austrian spelling was Habsburg?

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people per se, but you mentioned in general it's a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I suggest this for a good copyright statement:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work on Conservapedia is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

or this:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of cultural, artistic, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. It is made available for the purpose(s) of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. It is believed this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving similar information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-14T06:39:29Z

Js: /* What counts as "gossip" */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Possibly this could be handled by using the American version, Hapsburg, with a note saying that the Austrian spelling was Habsburg?

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people per se, but you mentioned in general it's a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-14T06:36:36Z

Js: /* American English spelling and foreign names. */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Possibly this could be handled by using the American version, Hapsburg, with a note saying that the Austrian spelling was Habsburg?

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people persay, but you mentioned in general its a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2007-03-14T06:33:34Z

Js: /* "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? */

==Archives==
[[TCC Archive 1|BC/AD vs BCE/CE]] 
[[TCC Archive 2|American Spellings]] 
[[TCC Archive 3|Cite Sources]]

==Encyclopedic Content==

We should add a new commandment that states that only things that qualify as encyclopedic content will be allowed.
one of our criticisims of Wikipedia is
"Wikipedia claims about 1.5 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 995 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics and gossip beneath a regular encyclopedia." We should be backing this up with a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:31, 24 January 2007 (EST)
* Tim, I don't know if that's all that necessary right now. As you say on the South Park page... we have only deleted '''one''' because of its content. Remember, we don't want to have a ton of rules. If this ever becomes a major problem we can add it. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 08:59, 25 January 2007 (EST)
*Perhaps we should simply make a guideline about encyclopedic content. It could read something like this: "When creating new pages, we request that you attempt to limit your contributions to encyclopedic content." If we add that, we will need to define Encyclopedic Content. I think one of our main problems is that this is rather difficult to define. This whole issue is not very important at the moment, so we can probably just continue what we have been doing so far for the time being. I think we will need a rule on this at some point in the future, however. We should discuss this further so we will be have a plan to use when that time comes. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 13:11, 25 January 2007 (EST)

We need to add a commandment to ''prevent'' a problem from happening in the future. Is there ever a reason to allow an article that is not encyclopedic content? If not, then why not have a commandment. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:48, 25 January 2007 (EST)

If we add an encyclopedic content commandment, it will keep people from posting non-encyclopedic content to begin with. Can anyone give an example of non-encyclopedic content that we would want to keep. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:37, 31 January 2007 (EST)

We criticize Wikipedia for havin lots of useless articles that a "real encyclopedia" would not include. If we do not make a rule about such things here, then when we start getting alot of users, we will start having the same problem here. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Tim, I changed my mind. I think it would be smart to make a command about this. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:44, 7 February 2007 (EST)

What is meant by what a real encyclopedia would have? For example, there has been some discussion about whether an article about South Park is acceptable. One could similarly ask about whether the Daily Show would be a legitimate topic for an article(certainly the fact that it was one of the most popular political comedy show on TV and is often accused of having a liberal bias is relevant) or what about comic strips such as Doonsebury and Opus? Similarly, going backwards in time, what about the Twilight Zone which in its original incarnation often included social commentary? Or Gilbert and Sullivan who in there day were considered to be pop culture. Heck, we can continue this all the way back to the Oresteia. If a line is going to be drawn, it should be clear where it is. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:46, 7 February 2007 (EST)

I think that we should have a Commandment limiting entries to "[[encyclopedic content]]," and then define encyclopedic content in a seperate page. on the subject of TV shows, we should establish concrete criteria that disqualifies most TV shows but might allow some that have had a particular impact. (I am not sure on [[South Park]] it does not seem to me to be very imortant, but I do not know much about it.) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:09, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: To be honest, its hard for me to see how we couldn't have an article on it given how political the show is and how many people watch it. Also, I think your response about defining it on another page is a bit of a non-answer. Part of my concern above was how to define encyclopedic content and whether there is a good defintion. How possible it is to come to an agreement about how to define encyclopedic content is relevant to whether or not we should have the policy.[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:14, 7 February 2007 (EST)
: I personally know virtually nothing about South Park so I do not really know if we should have it. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Possible Definitions===
Make suggestions for defining encyclopedic content here.

:The word "encyclopedia" comes from the root "-pedia," learning. "Encyclo-" means... well, here's what the American Heritage dictionary says:
::The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is ''enkuklios paideia,'' made up of ''enkuklios,'' “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and ''paideia,'' “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/97/E0129700.html]

:"Knowledge" has several dictionary meanings, but since the -pedia root means "education," I think the meaning of "knowledge" that applies here is "Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/K0094000.html]

:So, my definition of "encyclopedic content" would be "content that is clearly related to a school curriculum." In the case of the World Book, I think that's a high school curriculum; the Britannica, a college curriculum.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)

Here is a general idea for a definition of encyclopedic content: Content that is useful, informative, important, major news, no advertising, no movie or TV show reviews, Etc. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

===Unofficial Poll===
Encyclopedic Content Commandment.
===='''For'''====
:1.--[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:12, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2.-- [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 14 February 2007 (EST)
:3 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:16, 7 March 2007 (EST) (although maybe as a suggested guideline more than a rule)

===='''Against'''====
:1. Cross that bridge when you come to it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:25, 7 February 2007 (EST)
:2. Clearly not what we want. For example, this would prohibit articles about documentaries. For example, I think most of would see [[Inherit the Wind]], [[The Passion of The Christ]], [[Birth of a Nation]], [[An Inconvenient Truth]], [[Farehenheit 9/11]] as all candidates for articles. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:42, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::'''Reply''' I don't see how it would prohibit documentaries or movies. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:17, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::: Well then, what precisely are you prohibiting by "no movie or TV show reviews"?[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::I mean movie reviews as in: this is a good movie because... or don't see this movie... More Opinionated POV stuff. I guess I could have been more specific. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 22:57, 15 February 2007 (EST)
::::: That doesn't end up saying much. I mean, Wikipedia doesn't allow movie reviews in that sense either. It isn't clear to me now what precisely would be disallowed by this policy that isn't trivial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:3. Count me as against this proposed limitation. Deletions can always be made later, but at this early stage in the project we want it to be able to grow in many different directions. Recall the parable about the wheat and the chaff? Jesus explained that you do not sort the two early, but only at harvest. No reason to rush to delete and risk stamping out something that might grow and bear fruit.
:I might add that the [[Bias in Wikipedia]] page does not complain about useless Wikipedia entries. One (of 22) complaints there criticized Wikipedia's bragging about have so many entries, which the vast majority of its entries are frivilous. That is a complaint about misleading advertising, not a demand for deletion. Several complaints about Wikipedia on [[Bias in Wikipedia]] are about speedy and arbitrary deletions, something we want to avoid here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:45, 15 February 2007 (EST)
:'''Reply''' The Examples of Bias page has 5 entries attacking Wikipedia for having too much useless Info, (Nos 7, 10, 18, 19 and 22) and only 1 attacking the deletion policy, (No 9) --TimSvendsen 11:59, 15 February 2007 (EST)

==="Inclusionism" versus "deletionism"===
This discussion, and the one at [[AFD Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious]], parallel a very longstanding polarization in Wikipedia between "inclusionism" and "deletionism." When people are allowed to edit without direct supervision, they concentrate on those topics for which they have the greatest enthusiasm, which leads to unbalanced coverage. It also leads to the creation of articles which detractors call "cruft:" articles covering extreme minutiae, or articles covering things of interest to only a tiny number of people.

Aschlafly criticizes the overemphasis on pop culture, but I don't know if he's even run across the cruftier kinds of Wikipedia articles. Some specific topic areas that have generated heated discussion in the past:
*Unimportant roads, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcong_Circle Netcong Circle], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Route_520_%28New_Jersey%29 County Road 520, New Jersey]
*Minuscule micronations, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel Republic of Kugelmugel] (small organizations which claim to be independent nations.) (A ''well''-known one would be Sealand).
*Conlangs (artificially constructed languages) used by tiny numbers of people, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona Toki Pona] (''Well''-known ones would be Esperanto... and Klingon).
*Overspecialized lists, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_containing_the_name_of_a_ship,_aircraft_or_spacecraft List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft]
*Schools with nothing obviously special or important about them, e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_Middle_School Battlefield Middle School]
People are constantly contributing articles about games, phrases, etc. said to be in use at a single school, to the point where Wikipedia actually has a guideline, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day].

(No doubt Aschlafly, who keeps giving me rope on which I keep hanging myself, will add these to his examples of Wikipedian silliness...)
Inclusionists concentrate on the importance of building the encyclopedia and attracting contributions, and emphasize the virtues of improving rather than deleting sketchy articles on "silly" subjects. Some inclusionists would accept articles on any topic whatsoever, subject only to "verifiability." Deletionists emphasize the importance of keeping a high standard and getting rid of low-quality articles that are not actually being improved. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:16, 16 February 2007 (EST)

A different problem, which Conservapedia may encounter in time, is self-promotion. As Wikipedia began to attract wide notice, it occurred to many people that an article in Wikipedia could be an inexpensive form of publicity. This has led to fairly formalized "notability" criteria for websites, corporations, and rock bands. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:13, 16 February 2007 (EST)

In the end, however, we have to remember that online encyclopedias are infinitely expandable, to the point of encompassing all human knowledge in time. The fact that the Britannica leaves some things out may be more a case of "Nobody will buy a 3,000 volume set" than a case of "Some things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia". The emphasis on minutiae may be Wikipedia's greatest draw - you don't go to an online encyclopedia to find things you can find at the library, you go on to find the things you cannot find anywhere else. In another ten years, when Wikipedia fills in the gaps, it may very well be THE place to go when looking something up, just because you can find ANYTHING there, no matter how obscure. Reputation counts.--[[User:Smalltownhick|Smalltownhick]] 20:15, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==WWII German Entries==
We all know i have done alot of WWII entries in German. I hope i am not breaking rule #5. Get back to me on that. [[User:Will N.]]

== American English spelling and foreign names. ==

Should Martín Torrijos or Martin Torrijos be preffered? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:00, 15 February 2007 (EST)

*We seem to be using American spellings, as in the case of [[Hapsburg]] (instead of Habsburg), so I guess we should omit the accent mark. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 21:07, 15 February 2007 (EST)

The accent is part of the guy's ''name''. American spellings accept the accent mark within names. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:47, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Also, I should note that the American spelling of the Austrian dynasty (Ha'''p'''sburg in America) seems like a strange case to cite in arguing against Wikipedia's supposed Anglophilia, and as a policy precedent for Conservapedia. The actual name of the dynasty is Ha'''b'''sburg. As such, most scholars (including Americans) prefer the original spelling, and I see no reason not to use this, particularly since isn't a question of transliteration or preserving a diacritical mark not used in English.

To me, this screams for a clarification. Even if Conservapedia wants its content to use American spellings, does this extend to "Americanizing" proper names and official names/titles? Would Conservapedia have the name of the ruling party in the British parliament spelled "Labor," even though its official name is "Labour"? Or, to give another example, would Slavic names like "Edvard" and "Josef" be rendered into their English equivalents "Edward" and "Joseph"? Personally, I think the rule about American spelling should not be absolute, and that formal names of individuals and organizations should be retained as much as possible, including appropriate accents and diacritical marks. I'm not saying the original names or acronyms of foreign organizations (as opposed to personal names) would have to be used exclusively, but that it would be good to include the original name in the entry as a point of reference.

For instance, an entry on the German Nazi Party could give its original German name and acronym in parentheses (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeitspartei, or NSDAP), along with an English translation (National Socialist German Workers Party). It's useful for someone who's studying a foreign language and wants to know the name in the original, and also as a means of explaining why the acronyms often used for such organizations don't always correspond exactly to the English translation.

How does this add to the level of scholarship on this site? Aren't we arguing about trivial matters? It seems to be an effort at cultural preservation (for a culture that is derived from many others anyway) at the expense of the getting to the real meaning of things.

I agree that it's silly. I think that the standard should be whatever spelling is favored in America. For example, American newspapers generally refer to the British party in question as the Labour Party, so I think that would be acceptable. On the other hand, we don't refer to Germany as Deutschland. Sometimes I think we just need to use common sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Metric" vs. "English" units in scientific articles? ==
While changing [[Earth]] from a prank entry to a real entry, I realized I don't know what the Conservapedian community prefers with respect to style. For over a century, scientific writing has always used "metric" units exclusively, while in commerce and everyday life the United States uses the "English" system (pounds, inches, feet, miles, gallons, etc.)

For a while, in the seventies, it appeared that the U. S. might start using the metric system in ordinary life, but the Reagan administration put the kibosh on that. The imposition of the metric system into ordinary life is vaguely seen as "liberal" and opposition to it as "conservative." (BTW one of the horrors of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" was that his nightmare totalitarian state had imposed the metric system on England and pubs wouldn't draw "pints" any more).

(Formally and properly the "metric" system is called SI for "système international") The system used in the United States is sometimes called "English" but is properly called "U. S. Customary" because some of the units are different; gallons, for example).

The metric system has been legal in the United States (though of course not mandatory) since 1866, and all U. S. measurements have for a very long time been legally defined with reference to the metric system, i.e. the legal definition of one inch is 25.4 mm.

What style is preferred in Conservapedia for clearly scientific material?

1) '''Doesn't matter.''' Use whatever is convenient, i.e. whatever was used in whatever source was consulted for writing the material; for scientific material that would usually be SI. As a service to the reader, add a conversion later ''at any convenient time'' and without any fussing or making a political issue of it.

2) '''English (metric).''' Use U. S. Customary, with metric equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles (150 million km)?"

3) '''Metric (English).''' Use SI, with U. S. Customary equivalent in parentheses: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers (93 million mi)."

4) '''English only.''' Use U. S. Customary only: "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93 million miles.?"

5) '''Metric only.''' "The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 150 million kilometers."

Choice 1 is my preference.

P. S. Google will convert units for you. If you "search" for "50 cc in fluid ounces" Google returns "50 cc = 1.69070113 US fluid ounces" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:43, 1 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think that we can ask our contributors to bother converting their information to our prefered system.

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:14, 1 March 2007 (EST)

==External Links, Bots==
I propose the following. ''External links should be to reputable sites that are connected to the article subject.'' and ''Unauthorized bots are prohibited.''

Thoughts? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 20:51, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Do you have any firm criteria in mind for defining 'reputable?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: And what do you mean by connected? In fact, I would think in many cases a certain level of lack of connection is a good thing since there is likely to be less bias. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:58, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Reputable will probably have to be done on a case by case basis and I mean connected as in not placing a link for cooking in the physics sections. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:04, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand". I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
*Sites should have factual content

== Regarding repeatedly changing words to the "Brit" spelling ==

I think Conservapedia should merely '''slightly favor''' American spelling of words since most users would probably be American. Specifically, I think that only titles of articles should favor the American spelling and we should have redirects using the British spellings. I think that people from Britain and the commonwealth (who probably use British spellings) can make valuable contributions to Conservapedia. I see no reason to alienate these individuals by majoring on the minors. I see no problem with using British spellings and for Brits and others to change the various words spelling to British spellings since they likely believe the "American spelling" is incorrectly spelled. I see no reason to ban someone for repeatedly changing the spelling of words to the British spelling since they might in many cases not even know there was an American spelling to various words. In short, I see no reason why Conservapedia should be associated with being a "Ugly American" organization. I think such a policy outlined here would insure that Conservapedia has more of a global impact. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I see your point, but we are an American organization, and the Commandment does not completely prohibit British spelling. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Actually it says that the user will be block after repeated uses of the British spelling. But I do not see much dissent coming from our motherland. A British magazine did an article on Conservapedia, in which they gave our description and a short paragraph. It was lacking in criticism of our rule. So I don't think it is as offensive as you make it out to be Conservative. However, I do not object to making redirect pages that convert from the British spelling. That seems like a very acceptable idea. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::I just wanted to add that I am an American and was born in America. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::::Haha. I did not mean to convey that I thought you British. I am sure you are a great American. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)
==Bots==
I proposed a Commandment above prohibiting unauthorized bots. Anyone opposed to implementation? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

What exactly is a bot?

:a bot, as defined in Commandment 7, is a piece of software that can make over a hundred edits per second. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==What counts as "gossip"==

I don't think its just discussion about people persay, but you mentioned in general its a desire to avoid entries that seem like a "national enquirer" thing. So where do entries like [[facebook]] and [[myspace]] come in? Does this stuff count as worthwhile subject matter or is it "gossipy"? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In my opinion, MySpace could be argued to be a legitimate entry because it's frequently in the news relating to the issues of Internet privacy and safety. However, I saw that entry and the Facebook one and had the same concerns that you did. That being said, Mr. Schlafly said somewhere else that there's nothing wrong with having a few "fun" entries, so I don't think that it's a big deal. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:46, 8 March 2007 (EST)

==Obscenity==

Since Conservapedia admins are deleting articles that they consider obscene the Conservapedia Commandments should probably mention this and their definition of obscenity. On a related note family friendliness should also be defined . [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:Family friendly and obscenity are pretty much "Would you show this to your child?" [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: What people are willing to show their children varies from family to family and on the age of the child. Iin my family the level of profanity allowed depended on context of its use- profanity directed at someone else was much more problematic than profanity used as interjections or adverbs. ( can think of at least one English word that has two forms and depending where you are one is more acceptable than the other. I would also ask if the word for a female dog is acceptable? Does it depend on what context one is using it in? What about the word for an illegimate offspring? Two examples which I can probably safely mention are "gosh" which is no longer considered a serious swear by almost anyone and the word "sex." All of these seem to depend on both age and individual family. A much clearer criterion is needed. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 03:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:: I agree that this is too subjective. An example that I think is appropriate for Conservapedia is the Bible. Nobody will deny that there are passages in the Bible that many parents may be uncomfortable with their children reading. (I remember when I was a child asking my mother to explain the scene in Genesis where Lot impregnates his daughters and not receiving an answer.) Likewise, on Conservapedia, there may need to exist some pertinent, encylopedic information which may fall within the "gray area" of "would you show your children this?" Common sense in these cases may need to prevail. I'm not saying that we need to have graphic articles about sexuality or anything of the like. I'm just saying that there may need to be exceptions to the rule that Geo.plrd mentioned. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:i said pretty much, it isn't hard and fast. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Sock & Meat Puppets==
Opinions? [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:42, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:Due to the restrictive nature of account creation and anon blocking, I don't believe we have any. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::No probably not but it might be a good idea to get something in the commandments before trouble starts.
:::I rather think we ''have'' had some, but it's all guesswork, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:How about, ''Using sockpuppets to evade blocks is prohibited'' [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Do we care? Simpler just to ban accounts which break the rules and leave it at that. If a blocked user comes back as a sock, but stays entirely within the rules, does it really matter? The block achieved its aim, surely.

::Using sockpuppets to support one's arguments or edits is a different matter altogether, of course. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::''Use of sockpuppets to influence discussion or proceedings is prohibited.'' work? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Considering that discussions are not polls, I don't see why this matters. I also don't really see it on Wikipedia, even though things move on a scale where this ''might'' matter in a way. The current rules pretty much cover things. If you have to add a rule, just add something like "Don't act like a total jerk." and be done with it. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:37, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== suggestion as far as addition to the commandments - Encyclopedic/Non combative tone ==

I have a suggestion as far an addition to the commandments. How about a commandment that "Thou shall not have an unencyclopedic tone in thy writing." I think this would help better manage the amount of material that is argumentative in tone and obvious actions of trolls. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:While I like the idea, enforcing it would be tough. Our own idea of ''tone'' would be the basis for this commandment and I don't think everyone's idea of ''tone'' coincides. And I think favorable tone exists in some pages. It would be a hard commandment to implement. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: I highly agree with David on this one. We do need an encyclopedic content commandment though... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 20:41, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::One relevant suggestion on (whispers) Wikipedia is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Avoid instruction creep.] The whole essay is actually well worth reading, but the gist is: "'''Instruction creep''' occurs when a person or persons add to a list of instructions repeatedly, causing it to increase in size and complexity over time... Procedures are popular to suggest but unpopular to follow, due to the effort required to locate, read, learn and abide by them... New policies and guidelines should be added only where they will actually be helpful."

::So the question here is, will adding "Encyclopedic/Non combative tone" to the list of commandments actually be helpful? Is it actually likely to have an effect on what people do? Are these rhetorical questions? (Yes). In my opinion, people are most likely to be influenced by the behavior of the other editors the meet here; next most likely to be influenced by the tone of other pages they read here; and least likely to be influenced by what is on the "commandments" list. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:: There is value in keeping the list of Commandments short and simple. God only issued 10 Commandments for all of life. Let's try to make do with less for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Oh really? I see a lot more commandments than just 10 in the text. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:02, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::If you are referring to Exodus' 10 Commandments in the Bible, then you are terribly mistaken - they are called the 10 commandments for a reason. But I see where you might find more than 10 - Leviticus contains "''mini''-commandments" that direct the Jews how to do almost everything pertaining to their lives. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::: Oh? Deuteronomy contains a large number as well, as does Exodus, and nowhere in the text are those 10 particularly emphasized. Indeed, the 10 commandments when they are given are given with a whole host of other rules as well. And it is very hard to call the others "mini-commandments" considering that many of them are death penalty crimes. I don't know about you, but I don't think of anything I can get the death penalty for as a small commandment. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::"A soft tongue breaketh the bone" [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::::::Good quote and very true. Unfortunately I do not know what it has to do with my previous post. If you are talking about tone, then yes, a ''softer'' tone can persuade much more efficiently than a harsh one, which is why I oppose most of the more overtly biased articles. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::::::Yes, I agree with this. A partisan tone needs to be avoided; this can be done with well research and logically grounded sound presentations. Not hostile or angry. [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064694.html Wikien-1] has a running thread on how its going over here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Tone can be ironed out in the collaborative effort; good sourcing is the main ingredient. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:01, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Bible==

How about a commandment stating that Bible and research based on the Bible is considered valid. Initially I saw no reason for such a commandment but as Conservapedia users have expanded in number there are increasing numbers of edit removing biblical references from articles.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

*What are some examples of biblical references being removed? (Go into the History of the article, click on "Diff" at the point where it was removed, copy the long URL, and paste here...) Were they truly relevant? What did the whomever removed them state as the reason? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:12, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::The reasons for such removal are simple: there are individuals here who have brought their liberal-leaning bias with them from Wikipedia, and the intent is sabotage. Don't believe me? Go to Wikipedia here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ], and you'll see a subheading titled '''Conservapedia contributions''', and you'll see the following:
:::''Josh, I've got 108 people in my facebook group "Conservapedia is the Funniest Shit I've Ever Read" all contributing [tastefully] to conservapedia. We're not being blatantly vicious, but rather presenting them with cited facts. Their site is a frickin' joke. As we all know, to quote the esteemed Stephen Colbert, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." Thanks for fighting the good fight over there with us. --Boss hogg01 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)''
::The individual referred to as "Josh" is [[user:JoshuaZ]], who has nested himself here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Plagiarism/Copying from Wikipedia==

I propose another commandment, even though it should be common sense, that you can't copy from other sites. I've come across too many articles that have been copied directly from Wikipedia, and maybe fewer people would do it if there was a Commandment about it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:59, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Copying/making derived works from wikipedia is allowed under the terms of the [[GFDL]]. Instead of banning content from wikipedia, editors should be encouraged to maintain the license of GFDL content under the terms of the GFDL. [[User:MikeA|MikeA]] 03:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Most wikis are under the GFDL so they can freely borrow from each other and I can't think of a good reason why Conservapedia should be any different in that regard. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:17, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I suspect that Aschlafly wants to maintain more control, or at least have the option of maintaining more control, than the GFDL allows. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, direct copy-pasting should be discouraged, as it is sort of hypocritical; "we don't like Wikipedia, that's why we created this project, but lots of the information here is an exact duplicate" doesn't make all that much sense. Editors should be encouraged, however, to use Wikipedia articles as jumping-off points for articles, and to glean ideas for what to add to an article lacking in content. Just my $0.02. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 03:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::::For what it's worth, ''Wikipedia'' is perfectly cool with the idea of a "Wikipedia fork," that is ''starting'' with Wikipedia and ''changing'' it ("creating a derivative work")... e.g. removing content that's inappropriate for children, correcting bias selectively in articles that seem biassed, or whatever. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:13, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm with Hojimachong. I do use Wikipedia for ideas when writing articles from scratch, but I try to write everything myself. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: A lot of .gov sites don't carry copyrights and I think are de facto PD. Caveat: IANAL [[User:Cracker|Second Amendment]] 03:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:the copyright policy should take care of that. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

What about things such as medications or treatment? I tried looking up medications, can't find them here. Yet I can find them on wikipedia very easily. Furthermore what about medical conditions?

The copyright policy is clear concerning Wikipedia articles: there is none, and everything is in the public domain. If it is forbidden to use such articles as a basis for our own here, then it must be perfectly clear on that point. But in my own opinion, I am for using such articles, improving them, removing bias and anti-Christian/conservative stuff. What say you? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
:a copyright policy proposal is located at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:51, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Karajou, Wikipedia HAS a copyright policy. It's most definitely not public domain. And since Conservapedia most likely won't use the GFDL for its own content, we can't just grab articles and repost them here as our own. At least that's what I understood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

At the very least, I'd like some clarification. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Nowhere on the site can I find any reference to the license applied to Conservapedia content. What is it? It is both unreasonable and impractical to expect this wiki to grow without providing this information to the potential contributors. Are we to assume that all the content that we submit becomes sole property of Conservapedia under traditional copyright? This is a problem of grave importance that ''must'' be addressed before Conservapedia can expect to grow beyond its meager roots. – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Please note: GFDL is ''not'' public domain. There are rules associated with it and one of those is to give proper credit to the (main) authors of the work. Direct copy-paste without mentioning sources is not allowed, and technically, the derived work should also be under the GFDL and ''cannot'' be claimed as the work of the "author" nor as copyrighted by Conservapedia. Besides, it's extremely bad manners to just grab somebody else's text and put it up here as one's own work. In any way, Conservapedia needs a policy for this, as it might even have legal repercussions. For example, Wikipedia or one of their contributors could bring Conservapedia or one of its contributors to court for copyright infringements, and although IANAL, I suppose they would stand a fair chance in court. A forced complete shutdown of Conservapedia is not unthinkable if it should come to this. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Categorizing Articles==
On someone's talk page an admin said :

Hi and welcome. Please don't add a tag to a bunch of entries. Please improve them instead. Blocking will occur of accounts that simply tag entries.

If this is true than the Conservapedia Commandments should mention it. Unwritten rules are always frustrating to new editors.

[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 00:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Links in an article==

My question is in regard to how closely an article should be substantiated, or attributed. For example, the [[Scientology]] article has no links within it. Some of its statements are true (of my own knowledge). Other statements in it are opposed by the Church of Scientology (several court cases). Should the article be kept brief and simply have no critics' 'lies' in it, or should the article attribute its statements ? Or is there another, better way? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==1. Everything you post must be true and verifiable.==
What is the criteria for "true" here? My guess would be that the Bible is considered literally true here, so material directly mentioned there is covered. I know that the admins here don't agree with Wikipedia's "consensus of the masses" method of determining what is valid for a page, so is there another defined process here?

Also, what does "verifiable" mean? Again, I figure "in the Bible" is a valid way to verify something on this site. How would someone verify, "There is little consensus among scientists about how [[evolution|macroevolution]] is said to have happened"? As far as I can tell, much of the verification process seems to be about quotation. What is the process for determining which quotes are appropriate or inappropriate? For example, the statement about macroevolution above is supported by three quotes afterwards. How do we know those quotes are a representative sample?

I'm interested in contributing here, but I want to make sure I understand the rules before I start taking part. [[User:MrBob|MrBob]] 17:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Propose: "Don't copy"==
Propose (''with'' footnotes as shown);

*Original work only, please. Even if you only mean to use it as a starting point, ''don't'' begin by copying a whole article from anywhere—not even if the article under a "free" license, not even if it is truly in the public domain.<ref>Conservapedia does ''not'' license its content under GFDL or Creative Commons, and thus is not compatible with the terms of the licenses. But Conservapedia does not want extensive material copied from anywhere, even if it is out of copyright.</ref> ''Quoting'' a few sentences or a paragraph to illustrate a point is fine. Identify it as a quotation and ''show where it came from.''<ref>We like to have this done "inline" by using <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, but if you don't know how to do this, just put the source in parenthese. Someone else will be glad to take care of the formatting for you.</ref>

(Because: some new users who are familiar with other Wikis make incorrect assumptions about Conservapedia). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is going to slow the project to a crawl? I've posted a couple of articles that I got from .gov and .mil sites that had no copyright info at all.If you're going to require original research I'm going to guess that the site may eventually decided to reserve all rights? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm proposing this, not because I necessarily advocate it, because I believe this is already the de facto policy. Since the Commandments page makes a point of saying "This page is the only rule page on Conservapedia," any important policies need to be made explicit. The reason I believe this is the de facto policy is that Aschlafly has said:
:::*"note that we do not copy directly from Wikipedia or other sources, so please do not repeat that approach"
:::*(In response to "the first paragraph of the article on [Marsupial] is a direct copy from Wikipedia ... If conservapedia doesn't subscribe to the GDFL, then this material should be removed.) "Thanks. I removed virtually all of the first paragraph per your comment. We don't want copied material here."
:::*"I'd prefer that we don't copy anything at all!"
:::*"there is little point in wholesale copying of material from another Wiki into Conservapedia. What would that accomplish? Let's try to be original here."
::and he has chastised Wikipedia for copying from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, which of course is well out of copyright.
::As for reserving all rights, see the draft proposal at [[User:Geo.plrd/copyr2]] and discussion at [[User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2]]. Judge for yourself how close it is to adoption. One of the points is "Content is copyrightED under the laws of the United States America"[sic]. I think Conservapedia wants to maintain control so that it can grant ''or deny'' permission for re-use, and, yeah, I think ultimately that's going to mean "copyrighted." Aschlafly has said they don't mind and won't go after good-faith copying that doesn't harm Conservapedia, but I doubt that will be articulated formally or explicitly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think this is a great commandment, but it could be reworded to be less "harsh", and shouldn't be put into effect for another month or so; we want the project to build, and restrictions on copying would hinder the still very frail project. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::'''What about pictures?''' [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 20:09, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
==Propose: "Choose an account name that's like your real name"==
Propose:
*Conservapedia asks you to choose an account name that resembles your real name; for example, if your name is August Banting, "AugustB" or "Abanting" would be good choices. If your choice is taken, add a numeral or two at the end.

(Because: even if your account name doesn't reveal enough of your real name to identify you, ''you'' know it's your own name, and we think this encourages people to think about what they're posting). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wasn't this one scheduled to go onto the Registration page? *cocks head* Or do you want to make it a retroactive policy? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, if it goes on the Registration page that's fine. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Notes==
<references/>

== Vandalism and 18 USC §1030 ==

In [http://pirate.shu.edu/~jenninju/InternetLaw/09_Cybercrime/COMPUTERFRAUDABUSEACT18USC1030.htm 18 USC §1030], I fail to see anything that indicates vandalism of a wiki as an offense covered by it. This would be listed in section (a) of the law. Furthermore, all of the mention is about defrauding and exceeding access that has been granted. The open nature of the wiki grants the access and I don't see any indication of someone attempting to defraud or extort or trafficing in passwords or being a total of more than $5000 damage. It seems silly to try to threaten people with this when it does not apply. This is not to say that vandalism is not bad, but the cited law offers no federal protection. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: Good luck trying that argument with a judge presented with clear vandalism. In ''Shurgard Storage Ctrs. v Safeguard Self Storage, Inc.'' (2000, WD Wash) 119 F Supp 2d 1121, for example, one side tried to argue that "fraud" meant something narrower than wrong of someone else in property rights by a scheme. Guess what? The court rejected the defense. No surprise there.

: I bet there will be some new prosecutions based on vandalism of this new technology of Wiki, and it's not going to be pretty. On this issue, Wikipedia and Conservapedia will stand side by side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming that you reading of fraud is correct ("meant wronging of person in property rights by dishonest methods or schemes"), The sections that apply to defrauding are #4 and #6. #4 goes to state " knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization ... and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;" As the value of the vandalism is not conceivably more than $5,000 this fails. #6 is about trafficking in passwords "knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization". In most of the definitions the "without authorization" bit comes up - participation in the wiki is authorizing the person to make edits. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Layout suggestions==
I am for layout instructions on the Rules page, just to make it clear where we stand, and what we can or cannot do. I currently am going to Midle Tennessee State University, and like many other universities they pretty much hammer into the students how to write articles, what should be cited, what plagarism is...all that stuff. So, in accordance with the Harbrace Manual, here's some suggestions for writing articles.
*When writing, use the sandbox over and over, clicking on the "preview" button to look at it without posting it. The idea is to write, re-write, and re-write again, looking for correct grammar, spelling, and flow of thought. If it reads good, then post it.
*When citing sources, write the name of the author and the page number in parenthesis at the end of the citation like this: (Smith, pg 12). In a separate sub-heading at the bottom of the article labeled "References", write the source in the following order: author, title, publisher, city/state published, last copyright year: Smith, John R. ''Theory of Light'', Scribners, New York, 1977. University professors stress the importance of doing just that.
*When it comes to pictures, write in the "summary" block the title, author/creator of the work, date created, and where it came from, such as a museum or magazine publisher. This should apply to all public domain works as well.
*If the picture is copyrighted, say so, and by who/where. Write in the summary block FAIR USE REASON: (and it had better be a darn good reason!). I don't know if Fair Use is allowed here for pics of current news events, or people/places/things after 1923, so ask first!
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: That seems like good information to me, but should be available as some kind of help click or guideline or something. As opposed to, you know, an editor needing to come here to learn how to conform to standard editing practices. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 20:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yup...like a "how-to" page that can be accessed immediately from the main page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)