WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines

The wiki admins will monitor the wiki and use their common sense to resolve issues. Where there is a dispute it will be resolved between the active admins on the site. (Or alternatively a vote amongst the active users.)

That said, we do have a couple of rules, which have arisen from direct experience:

1. Actual commercial spam will be mercilessly deleted. Irrelevant content should be instead marked for deletion, to allow a review first. One man's "irrelevant" can be another's "interesting".
2. Controversial content should also not be deleted, but debated on the talk pages and/or improved by adding quotations, references, and anything else that may serve as evidence for (or against) it. Again, what is controversial can be subjective.

For a few more simple guidelines, see Editing etiquette or WikiIndex:Guidelines. For other guidelines, see Category:Guidelines.

Criticism of wikis

MarkDilly seems to be the only active bureaucrat, this would appear to be a quote from this location: "I can understand that folks from Conservapedia don't want the page on WikiIndex about their wiki to be overrun by criticism - and I can also understand that people want to talk about problems they have with the wiki. Why not take it to a page Constructive Criticism of Conservapedia and simply make one line / link on the Conservapedia page pointing to this. ~~ MarkDilley" Lumenos 20:02, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

DavidCary (sysop) writing on this subject can be found here (used to be here). Lumenos 20:02, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Are the articles on wikis to be sympathetic, critical, both, or "neutral"? ~~ Lumenos

Wikipedia supposedly uses the "neutral" approach.

This offers much opportunity for censorship and edit waring. ~~ Lumenos

Wikinfo deals with edit wars by making the main article sympathetic, and posting a link at the top of that article, to an article devoted solely to criticism.

This sort of policy sounds like it might work here, if y'all agree. ~~ Lumenos

It's cumbersome at Wikinfo but it's better than not allowing criticism at all.Proxima Centauri 01:34, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

Disputed information

• Tag: Placing "warning tags" on info that is dubious, impolite, etc. ~~ Lumenos

• Warning tags are too strong - I like the idea of tags and think they should point to constructive information. ~~ MarkDilley

• Relocating an article about a wiki, to the talk page, and locking the article:

Are we supposed to be agreeing on a version of the article? [...]Lumenos 17:24, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

We don't need to agree on a particular version of any article. If something's wrong with the content, we can simply mark the trouble spots with notes like "citation needed" and "ambiguous - please clarify". The one thing that should be a no-no is reverting or deleting edits with no good reason. By the way, "because I say so", or "because that's the way we do over at wiki X" are NOT good reasons. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 02:11, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Point of view, commenting in articles

[I suggested what I thought would be called a "neutral point of view" for this article. Lumenos 20:14, September 21, 2009 (UTC)]

I disagree strongly with Neutral Point of View for this wiki. I understand that it is for this page only - and I am not sure that is still a good thing. ~~ MarkDilley

The question is, what would be a better thing? I've listed some other options here. I don't see how we would have a sympathetic POV for this page, unless maybe it is "sympathetic" to "WikiIndex" but I'm not sure what that would mean. Lumenos 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

What potential problems do you see with this "NPOV" here? (It is not Wikipedia's NPOV, BTW) Lumenos 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Those are fair comments - I just don't know what NPOV would do for us here. My experience with wiki, is that if I say something that is outrageous and inflammatory - someone comes in and fixes it - keeps the meaning but neutralizes it. So I do agree with not creating an atmosphere of forest fire mentality or edit waring or flaming. ~~ MarkDilley

We are allowing "commenting" on this page, but I don't want to open up debates about specific conflicts. This is my reason for the "NPOV". Lumenos 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

I think that commenting on any page is allowed - that is how wiki has worked for many places before Wikipedia. ~~ MarkDilley

(Here is Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view if this may give us any ideas.) -- Lumenos

Another idea would be to use the talk page for "comments" but the whole thing is pretty much my "POV", so I don't want to exclude others. Lumenos 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Glad that you are interested in inclusion. ~~ MarkDilley

I feel strongly that we should be signing our proposals and claims here and I thank you for doing so. Lumenos 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)

Ditto ~~ MarkDilley

I've tried to remove or strike-out nearly everything that could be considered my POV. I've left only some things that the administration has responded to. The old style of this policy page (which I was referring to as being in my POV) can be found here. (Really what I meant was that the original page had a number of my policy proposals, questions, and observations. The ideas of having the outline structure based on a sort of conflict theory, and drawing a distinction between manifest and latent "policy", were mine, also.) Lumenos 20:58, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Biographical info

For now I would suggest the standard be defined by "local" laws and Wikipedia's policy on biographical info until a standard more specific to WikiIndex can be established. ~~ Lumenos

Since this is WikiIndex, I'd stick to people who are important in the world of Wikis, such as creators of established engines and people like Jimmy Wales. For guidelines on how to write the biographies, Wikipedia does look like a good model to follow. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 12:07, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Common sense proposal [for this project page]

This is a small and relatively inactive wiki. It hardly needs a very large policies and guidelines section - which admins and users are unlikely to read anyway. What it needs are active, fair-minded admins who use common sense.

I therefore propose that this whole page be replaced with the words: "The wiki admins will monitor the wiki and use their common sense to resolve issues. Where there is a dispute it will be resolved between the active admins on the site. (Or alternatively a vote amongst the active users.) --Bob M 14:16, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

I beg to differ. At 4668 content pages and dozens of edits a day, WikiIndex is hardly small or inactive. Remember, Wikipedia is an outlier, completely off the scales when compared to anything else. That said, I agree we should rely on common sense more than rules. But rules are useful as general guidelines. Just to get everyone on the same page, you know (pun intended). Felix Pleşoianu | talk 02:16, 13 September 2009 (EDT)

[I removed only my comments that had appeared here. Lumenos 21:07, September 21, 2009 (UTC)]

Frankly - the common sense understanding of how to prevent it, was for everyone to stop the name calling, stop the edit warring and slow down. This page is in need of pairing down and I think BobM provides a clear path on that road. ~~ MarkDilley

(Based on the above comment and this one I moved the content of this page to this subpage, and replaced the page with Bob's suggestion. I have since moved administrative comments back in. Lumenos 21:22, September 21, 2009 (UTC)