Crazy Conservapedia and Wikipedia rules

"So I'm the bad guy? How did that happen?"
-- D-Fens in movie "Falling Down"
(maybe D-Fens was really sane and it was the world that was crazy)



I have started posting on Conservapedia and have found that the Conservapedia rules are as crazy as the Wikipedia rules. For example, Conservapedia's "90/10 rule" says,

The 90/10 rule, unique to Conservapedia, authorizes the blocking of accounts that engage in excessive talk, bickering, last wordism, and other unproductive activity. Specifically, as has been stated in the rules since soon after the formation of Conservapedia:

Unproductive activity, such as 90% talk page edits and only 10% quality edits to Conservapedia articles, may result in blocking of the account

The 90/10 rule is remarkably adept at discouraging and eliminating the mobocracy or talk pollution that runs rampant on other sites, such as Wikipedia. Implementation is simple and application is swift.

"Last wordism" is defined as follows:
.

Last wordism is the belief that victory can be obtained in a debate or discussion by having the "last word." Some argue that last wordism is often a characteristic of "less intellectually robust presentations."[1].

Last wordism reflects a lack of restraint, a characteristic of wrongdoing or sin. The ultimate in last wordism was men asking for Jesus to be crucified and Pontius Pilate stating that Jesus was to be crucified, to which God responded with the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Wikipedia has what I call the "bears-don't-shit-in-the-woods-unless-a-reliable-nonpartisan-source-says-so" rule:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

In other words, if a reliable nonpartisan source is found that says that bears shit all the time, and another reliable nonpartisan source is found that says that bears live in the woods, concluding that bears shit in the woods "would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research," which is not allowed on Wackopedia. I am NOT exaggerating -- I ran into precisely this problem when I tried to add "Of Pandas and People" to the Wackopedia list of banned books.

Though I am now logged in on Conservapedia, I find that for some strange reason I cannot add more comments to a talk page that I myself started under my username LarryFarma. However, my original comment did get a favorable response from Conservapedia founder Andy Schlafly:

LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.) Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population? The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal. They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--Aschlafly 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Some of the additional material that I wanted to post on Conservapedia is now posted here in this comment.
.