Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia:AFD Major bias in conservapedia"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:Agreed. This will generate more heat than light. If there are no coherent objections by the time I'm logging off for the day, I'll go ahead and delete it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | :Agreed. This will generate more heat than light. If there are no coherent objections by the time I'm logging off for the day, I'll go ahead and delete it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :'''Conditional Delete''' As above, it ''is'' a troll magnet. But we do need a page devoted to hashing out disputes that are not page specific; otherwise it either ends up on the [[Conservapedia:Abuse| Abuse]] page or on [[User_Talk: Aschlafly| Aschlafly]]'s talk page. I suggest a less pejorative name, "Conservapdia: Discussion" with a line denoting that it is for discussions that are not strictly abuse but merely differences in POV's. | ||
| + | :Putting it under Discussion would ensure that things that are in '''contention''' are being talked about, having it as a listing in the main talk page would only invite "how's the weather?" posts. There are problems here and they need to be aired out otherwise we're all going to lose a great project. MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 10:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:35, March 19, 2007
Major bias in conservapedia
Being self-aware of a site's problems can be useful... Examples at Wikipedia include Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing and Wikipedia:Problems with Wikipedia. However, those stuck around because they offer some constructive criticism, and are written as a cohesive summary by very experienced users who understand some of Wikipedia's broader, more subtle problems.
This page, however, is likely to become a drive-by troll magnet for people who are new to the site. Moreover, most locked pages have an unlocked talk page where specific concerns can be addressed, and, failing that, User talk:Aschlafly seems to be a popular place to list complaints. --Interiot 10:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- Agreed. This will generate more heat than light. If there are no coherent objections by the time I'm logging off for the day, I'll go ahead and delete it. Tsumetai 10:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
- Conditional Delete As above, it is a troll magnet. But we do need a page devoted to hashing out disputes that are not page specific; otherwise it either ends up on the Abuse page or on Aschlafly's talk page. I suggest a less pejorative name, "Conservapdia: Discussion" with a line denoting that it is for discussions that are not strictly abuse but merely differences in POV's.
- Putting it under Discussion would ensure that things that are in contention are being talked about, having it as a listing in the main talk page would only invite "how's the weather?" posts. There are problems here and they need to be aired out otherwise we're all going to lose a great project. MOO --Crackertalk 10:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)