CreationWiki talk:Policy

NPOV vs SPOV
Grifken 12:44, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The policy to write articles with a YEC Point of View is very good. However, there is still a need for NPOV for representing various viewpoints within the YEC camp.

For example, on the subject of Biblical chronology dispute it would be helpful if there was a policy on how to represent varying points of view. Should each POV write a separate article, or should one NPOV article be created that quotes published works by the varying points of view?

From an initial perusal of this site, it appears that there needs to be a more specific editorial policy on writing style. Is the goal of this site to present strong POV teaching articles similar to Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine; or is the goal to provide YEC encyclopedic content that quotes published YEC works rather than presenting original research?

Ken Griffith Grifken 12:44, 27 May 2007 (EDT)


 * There is no such policy that articles must be written from the YEC Point of View. We simply require that they represent the Creationist POV (CPOV), and take a rather subjective NPOV stance. The Biblical YEC POV will remain predominant, but we welcome views from the OEC camp and other religions.


 * I note that you deleted a point of view regarding the "Sons of God" from the Nephilim article. Deleting points of view you disagree with is not permitted.


 * Original research is allowed. Articles should be original work, with quotes used in very limited manner.

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Ashcraft, I deleted the sentence in question because it was unreferenced and unsupported, not because I disagreed with it. And I would delete it again, because it still is not supported or referenced. It has nothing to do with my agreeing or disagreeing with it.

And furthermore, if you follow the three-day rule, you would have given me a chance to put something to the same effect in the same article, but you didn't follow the three-day rule. You immediately started reverted my changes within minutes, while I was still working on other parts of the article. How can you expect people to follow the rules on this site if you don't? Grifken 20:52, 17 June 2007 (EDT)


 * The 3-day rule applies to new articles as is clearly stated on the Policy page. Nevertheless editors are asked not to edit articles that are under active revision (displayed on the recent changes page). In either case, such policies do not apply to the administration. It is the duty of the admins to monitor editor activities and reverse them immediately if need be. Particular attention is given to new members such as yourself.


 * You seem quick to complain about the site, which has not been taken favorably. Your very first edit was in fact a complaint regarding the need for more specific editorial policy. Now you've posted a complaint directed at the administration on 2 separate pages. Be advised that derogatory complaints such as this, which are directed at the administration are considered an act of site vandalism.


 * Please be careful to following the rules in the future, and leave their enforcement to the administration. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Mr. Ashcraft, I am neither an evolutionist vandal, nor a fanatic trying to advance only one point of view. Nor am I given to complaining in general. I had thought that your goal was to create a creationist encyclopedic site with a high standard of well-referenced sources.

The only reason I posted here about your reversions, and am posting here again, Mr. Ashcraft, is that you first accused me on this page, and on the other, of deleting a sentence because I didn't agree with, and then you accused me of deliberately reverting an administrators edit, and now you have called me a vandal. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and generally avoid promoting or suppressing points of view that I don't agree with. However, I was trying to ascertain the difference in the editorial climate here on this site before diving in with a lot of work on new and existing articles. I find your tight control and readiness to rebuke people like me on the discussion forum to be rather heavy-handed.

If you don't like to have these conversations out on the discussion page, you might be well advised to make your rebukes privately via email and make sure you have the facts correct before you attribute evil motives to someone. I am not a difficult person to get along with, but when you make public rebukes and accusations, you invite a public response.

This site has a great potential to become a Christian encyclopedia - if you are willing to avoid hen-pecking the contributors.

My first post on this page was a request for editorial guidance, not a complaint. The fact that you evidently consider that mild request to be "complaining and vandalism" suggests to me that there are better places for me to use time. Likewise with the sentiment that editorial policies don't apply to administrators. Good luck with your project. You may delete my login if you wish. Ken Griffith Grifken 11:18, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Despite your claims here, your comment on the Nephilim discussion page clearly states that you were deleting the content because you disagreed with it.

''By suggesting that God created other humans besides Adam and Eve, the original author of this article steps out of the fold of orthodoxy, as the Scriptures clearly teach that all men die because of Adam's sin, because all men are sons of Adam. Therefore, I will alter this paragraph to reflect Biblical orthodoxy. - Ken Griffith''


 * Regardless, there are many ways to vandalize an entity, some unintentional. Perhaps the best method of doing so is to undermine the authority of the leadership. Your derogatory comments regarding administrative observance of rules was meant to do just that.


 * The CreationWiki is not plagued by vandalism specifically due to the dedication and diligence of the administration. People tend to assume that publicly accessible sites or forums are unregulated free-for-alls where they have a right to do whatever they want. As a result, tight control is required to preserve the purpose of the site and maintain a civil, organized environment. --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2007 (EDT)