| Chapters Appendices | 'Wise counsel' letterThis is an e-mail I sent to Andy on 5th January, 2008. See chapter 3 for context. Andy,
I was going to start this letter off this
way:
This was going to be followed with my reaons why I
thought that you should let others have more say. Then I realised that I was probably wrong with that first
assumption.
You are a Christian, and I presume that you believe
that starting Conservapedia was something that God wanted you to do (if not, why
did you do it?). As such, Conservapedia
belongs to God, not you, although He has given you the privilege and
responsibility of starting it. So it is not you who should have the
final say, but the consensus of people who are themselves submitting to God's
will.
God tells us that "Where there
is no guidance the people fall, But in abundance of counselors there is
victory." (Proverbs 11:14). Also that "As iron
sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another" (Proverbs 27:17).
And that we should "Submit to one another out of reverence
for Christ." (Hebrews 5:21).
We should all be open to take notice of the advice
of others. Part of the reason for this is that no-one is infallible; we
are all fallen creatures.
Of course that doesn't mean that we listen to the
"advice" of just anyone. "The fear of the LORD is the
beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good
understanding." (Psalm 111:10). So we should listen to the advice
of fellow Christians. And this is what Hebrews is telling us—to
submit to other Christians, not just anyone. Furthermore, there's no point
in listening to those who simply tell you what you want to hear. They have
to be prepared to give advice even when it might offend or upset.
I raise this, because in several different cases
now, I've seen you ignore the considered opinions of others and stick stubbornly
to your own views.
One example is with regard to the issue of making
Learn together a sysop. You sought the advice of the senior sysops, all of
whom supported his promotion (well, all the ones who commented, but that was
quite a few). You sought the view of the student panel, which also agreed
with his promotion. You have said to the senior sysops a number of times
things like "I'm open to the consensus". But when the consensus was that
Learn together should be promoted, you ignored all that consensus, that advice
and counsel, and made your own decision to not promote him, at least for
now.
Yes, you had a reason for doing so, a lack of
"substantive edits". But the problem is that "Substantive edits" is a very
subjective term. I've not been interested in looking for any, because I
don't know if anything that I find would be acceptable to you as
"substantive". In any case, why should his
housekeeping edits be insufficient cause to promote him?
The point is, the senior editors and the members of
the student panel all consider his edits—"substantive" or otherwise—of
sufficient merit to promote him. Yet you hold out as though it is
your encyclopedia, rather than God's encyclopedia controlled by a team
with you as the leader of that team.
Two other examples are your opinions on Piltdown
man being a hoax (which we discussed by e-mail some time back) and Archaeopteryx
being a fraud. In both these cases, I quoted to you "wise counsel" that
they were not so. That is, I quoted Godly people, experts in their fields,
who disagreed with you. In the case of Archaeopteryx you do have Hoyle
(not a Christian) and his team supporting your point of view, but given
that apparently none were appropriately qualified to comment, and that further
evidence that they didn't have access to has become available, and that the
overwhelming opinion of experts, including Godly ones, is against your view,
then your case is not a strong one.
Both these cases are further examples where Andy
Schlafly is putting his own opinion above everyone else's, including experts,
instead of submitting to the views of others.
An example in a slightly different vein is the
issue with Richard Dawkins. This is different to the examples above in
that I think that nobody has produced arguments from other Godly people
disagreeing with you, but it does look very much like you are stubbornly
sticking to your opinion no matter what. I'd consider reviewing the
evidence myself and offering my own opinion, but from what I've seen you doing
in the case of Archaeopteryx, etc., I'm afraid that if my opinion differs from
yours, you'll just ignore (or dismiss) or revert me anyway, and all
that will be achieved is me wasting my time.
Please take these comments as constructive
criticism and ponder them accordingly.
Sincerely,
Philip Rayment
I never got a direct reply, but Andy did post the following message to the New Discussion Group the next day.1 Not only does it misrepresent the point of my letter, I find it ironic that Andy was doing the very thing that he cautioned against in his last paragraph: presenting something wrong as right just because he was taught it and some others believed it. Another sysop emailed me about disputes over key entries, and I thought it best to respond generally. Conservapedia is about presenting the facts without liberal bias, and with an open mind. I don't have any ax to grind. I've changed many of my views that I held for most of my life after reexamining logic and facts with an open mind. I'd like to see visitors and editors at Conservapedia do likewise. There is much deceit out there. We see it in vandalism on our website, we see it in politics, we see it in business, etc. There is also much confusion. We should not "compromise" entries to present "sides" of an issue that are logically wrong, confused, unsubstantiated, or deceitful. Conservapedia should be a place where people can go, including youngsters, and read the concise and direct truth. We have all been taught things that are wrong, and we shouldn't be presenting them on Conservapedia just because we were taught them or other people believe in them. If it's logical, let's present it. If not, let's move on.
| Timeline22nd November, 2006 Conservapedia is created 17th March, 2007 I join Conservapedia 3rd April, 2007 I am made an Administrator 25th April, 2007 First Admin. e-mail group. 25th May, 2007 Ed Poor proposes me as "template manager". 5th January, 2008 Letter to Andy about wise counsel 28th April, 2008 Bugler joins Conservapedia around June, 2008 I'm feeling more and more uncomfortable with associating myself with Conservapedia. 11th June, 2008 Bugler gains block rights. 17th June, 2008 I start writing these pages. 20th June, 2008 DanH quits. 31st December, 2008 Bugler loses rights. 1st January, 2009 CPAdmin1 quits. 2nd January, 2009 Bugler outs himself. 22nd March, 2009 I resign |