Though the UU Encyclopedia strives for a neutral point of view (NPOV) on the assumption that objective discussion allows the reader to come to his own conclusions, and avoids the experience of being "spoon-fed" another's attitudes, the Christian Point of View (CPOV) is somewhat different, as the discussion below indicates.
The authors do suggest that, to get the whole story, heresy must be allowed, and others must be allowed to call it heresy. This is somewhat similar to the POV on this wiki except, here it is desirable that the disagreement also use a NPOV, or at least label a view as a POV. It also differs in that UU's don't determine what is heresy at least, not as a dogma. Each observer is allowed to determine what s/he believes is reasonable, and what s/he sees as in error, after taking all views into account.
To be objective, a labeled POV should not just be "as I see it," but should be stated from the viewpoint of a neutral outside observer, such as "in the view of some persons." Those "some persons" should be significant (not just somebody who had a conversation) and should not be presented as superior or inferior, but as another faction with its own opinion, even if the opinion happens to coincide with one's own. Where possible, those "some persons" should be identified as to their group, such as "evangelicals," "Christians," "Humanists," or whatever.
As stated elsewhere, if an opinion is backed up with data, it is seen as more than just an attitude, but as an opinion with a rational reason for existing.
At the time of this writing, we are relying heavily on biased sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, but balancing them with other such sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia or the OrthodoxWiki. Though they independently disagree with one another without necessarily referring to one another, we get the effect of a NPOV just by the comparison of their differences, and always of course, considering the source.
The discussion below illustrates one way of handling disagreement, which though not identical to the UUE approach, can be enlightening in suggesting the nature of a wiki's problems, and certain alternate solutions:
.
CPOV in a wiki, as discussed by Christian Knowledge Base:
Talk:Christian Knowledge Base:What is a Christian From Christianity Knowledge Base This page should serve as the definitive debating arena to determine what groups, denominations, persons, or otherwise are defined as Christians, for the purposes of determining the CPOV. Also, remember Matthew 7:1, "Do not judge others, lest ye be judged...." so everyone, let's try not to judge people, we can say whether or not someone's theology would make them a non-Christian or not without judging them about things. Remember, even the most adament of Satanists could be a Christian who has been taken over by anti-Christ nanoprobes or something.
Proposed Editorial Guidelines for CPOV Wikipedia fails the Christian standard with their three basic rules of: neutral point of view, no original research, and citations needed. . First, the Biblical standard teaches me that the truthful point of view (CPOV) can be seen only by allowing & including full description and rebuttals of all points of view, especially by allowing heresy, and allowing the rebuking of heresy.
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
Second, Daniel says that knowledge is increasing, thus new & original research must be allowed.
Daniel 12:4 "...many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."
Third, anything reasonable must be allowed. A person ought to be able to cite scripture, math, logic, reason, tradition, consensus, a persecuted minority of one, or even a "gut feeling" or "spiritual inclination" in order to back up a point. Citations are not needed when pointing out self evident truths, or when stating 2 + 2 = 4. Citations are unhelpful if someone is citing an author who is lying, and when cross examinations are not allowed to be published.
These three rules can be summed up as 1. Allow all points of view, including heresy, and the rebuke of heresy. 2. Allow new & original research. 3. Allow anything reasonable.
In other words, "allow, allow, allow".
Please cite your agreement or disagreement with these proposed guidelines, and state your username. --Jason Hommel, bibleprophesy.org Jason Hommel 21:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
(To get the extended discussion, click on the blue links above.)
Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia From Conservapedia - We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material to the extent anyone else edits it, as you cannot then copy your entry for use elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions.
- We are an educational resource, including lectures and study guides, and we welcome students and adults seeking to learn. Wikipedia has no lectures or study guides and many of its entries and discussions are anti-intellectual in nature.
- We are a genuine volunteer effort unaffiliated with any money-making scheme. Wikipedia, while relying on volunteers, uses its traffic to attract million-dollar investments in money-making projects, such as building a search engine.
- We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts.
- We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
- We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.
- We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children. Wikipedia has pornographic images, without meaningful warning. Conservapedia is first and foremost a family-friendly encyclopedia.
- We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then we use the label "terrorist" but Wikipedia will use the "neutral" term "militant".
- We do not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules.
- We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as "original research". Here, we do not restrict research for articles in that manner.
- We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible. Wikipedia treats users' own talk pages like government or public property, and it becomes a place for Wikipedia editors to bully users.
- We do not encourage the insertion of distracting "stub templates" in entries. Wikipedia has numerous distracting templates on entries.
- We do not require contributing editors to have to explain themselves constantly and justify every single edit to prove that it conforms to an exacting set of rules which are designed to suppress original thought, new ideas and penetrating insights.
- We do not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research.
- We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.
- We do not encourage anti-intellectual editor names that are attracted to Wikipedia. For example, the Wikipedia administrator who initially deleted the entry about Conservapedia uses the name "Nearly Headless Nick." The Hartford Courant observed that another editor posted under the name "The Ostrich." These names send an inappropriate anti-intellectual message for an encyclopedia.
. CONSERVAPEDIA COMMANDMENTS
.
- Everything you post must be true and verifiable. Do not copy from Wikipedia[1] or elsewhere unless it was your original work.
- Always cite and give credit to your sources,[2] even if in the public domain. Conservapedia's Manual of Style assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article. In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited.
- Edits/new pages must be family-friendly, clean, concise, and without gossip or foul language.
- When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
- Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.
- The operation of unauthorized wiki-bots is prohibited.[3]
- Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk and only 10% quality edits, may result in blocking of the account.
Edits which violate these rules will be deleted. Users who violate the rules repeatedly will be blocked. A blatantly inappropriate entry, such as vandalism or obscenity, can result in immediate blocking without warning. Sockpuppets are also blocked.
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }
Notes - ↑ It is appropriate to quote or cite Wikipedia to illustrate the liberal view of an issue.
- ↑ Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.
- ↑ Search engine and read only bots are exempt from this Commandment. To get authorization please post a note on User_talk:Aschlafly, stating what the bot will do, what username it will be under, and whether you have a working prototype. Bot owners are responsible for their bots' actions.
Attribution There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "All living species of animals evolved from earlier species" and saying "Most biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species".
English teachers call that attribution.
Here's another example:
- It was raining on Tuesday. (unattributed)
- John said it was raining on Tuesday. (attributed)
Newspaper report on a murder trial:
- Smith killed Jones.
- Judge Robinson found Smith guilty of killing Jones.
Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X."
Notice that at no point do these statements endorse any of the views. The sample text provided merely states what each view is, without saying whether any of them is correct or incorrect.
Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe". [1]
In regards to attribution, always cite and give credit to your sources,[2] even if in the public domain. Conservapedia's Manual of Style assists new wiki users on how to put footnotes in an article. Notes - ↑ Ed Poor (→Proposed sections for alteration: please add to discussion - Why not do here what Wikipedia CLAIMS it does?)
- ↑ Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.
Civility - You must be civil. No bullying.
- Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions.
- There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t.
- Violators of this CP Guideline will be blocked.
Article level Articles should be written as much as possible to be understandable at a high school (ages 14 to 18) level, in order to ensure they will be accessible and educational to students. If more complex information is necessary, as in advanced math entries, then it should be explained as simply as possible in the introduction, and a full explanation should follow in the body of the article.
Reliability A few suggestions about reliability.
- Reliability is the quality that makes people want to rely on you.
- It's like trust: you have to earn it.
- People test you, and you must pass their test, or they won't trust you or rely on you.
- A major test of Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated
- Science is reliable when enough scientists make enough effort to check each other's work.
- Bias gets in the way of reliability.
- Neutrality may not always be an antidote to bias.
Sources We should not allow any and all citations to newspaper stories. Journalistic opinions are not authorities, and journalists are not authorities on scientific issues. It is better to cite the scientific article directly.
Teamwork A few suggestions about teamwork.
- Let others boss you around.
- Yes, take assignments from your fellow editors. If someone asks you for an article on a topic you know about, or are interested enough to bone up on, please do.
- Conform to formats, styles, and emerging patterns of article organization.
- Be nice to the other editors.
- Sarcasm seems witty when you're typing, but will the reader really get the point you are trying to make?
- Hurt feelings reduce cooperative spirit and ultimately work against teamwork.
- Be helpful.
- Are you good at spellchecking, grammar, copyediting?
- Do you know how to design a template or format a table?
- Let others know what you are doing, and respond quickly to queries.
- Use talk pages, especially user talk pages.
- Allow others to contact you via email or instant messaging
- For really difficult issues, consider speaking by telephone
More See also:
|
Share this
