WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines: Difference between revisions

WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines (edit)

Revision as of 18:16, 22 October 2009

1,518 bytes added , 22 October 2009

→‎Proposal: Articles should preferably stick to facts: Reply

MarvelZuvembie

Administrators

5,637

edits

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 ::::Speaking of Mark, I don't think he wants to be the ultimate arbiter of conflict or policy. However, he's been around here far longer than me, so I find him to be a good resource as to the original ethos of WikiIndex. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
-:::::"I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-(" You've been doing so much good editing here lately, I wouldn't want to deter you. I don't know exactly what you are referring to. Some things I regret writing. I don't understand why you would find something tiring if you don't have to read it. I can understand if you want WikiIndex to seem inviting to other editors. Some conflicts I've been involved in, seem necessary, others do not (in hindsight). Having no auto-filter for Recent Changes makes it impossible to direct this information to only those who choose to read it. In the future, I will probably post such replies at [[Lumeniki]] and only post a link to it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
+:::::''"I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-("'' You've been doing so much good editing here lately, I wouldn't want to deter you. I don't know exactly what you are referring to. Some things I regret writing. I don't understand why you would find something tiring if you don't have to read it. I can understand if you want WikiIndex to seem inviting to other editors. Some conflicts I've been involved in, seem necessary, others do not (in hindsight). Having no auto-filter for Recent Changes makes it impossible to direct this information to only those who choose to read it. In the future, I will probably post such replies at [[Lumeniki]] and only post a link to it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
-:::::"In the avalanche of messages pertaining to conflicts at RationalWiki, I hadn't even noticed that was one of the points of contention." The fact there was a service outage, was not a point of contention. Some points of contention were that I quoted sources and stated "facts", such as who said what. Some RW bureaucrats preferred that WikiIndex make unsourced claims or assume that these are reliable/infallible sources and paraphrase these (as if these claims are endorsed by WikiIndex). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
+:::::''"In the avalanche of messages pertaining to conflicts at RationalWiki, I hadn't even noticed that was one of the points of contention."'' The fact there was a service outage, was not a point of contention. Some points of contention were that I quoted sources and stated "facts", such as who said what. Some RW bureaucrats preferred that WikiIndex make unsourced claims or assume that these are reliable/infallible sources and paraphrase these (as if these claims are endorsed by WikiIndex). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
-:::::"By basic information, I mean facts which can be verified empirically (the link, the underlying wiki engine, the statement of purpose, # of pages, etc.)." The statement of purpose can be completely misleading. It ''is'' a fact that it is the statement of purpose, but it is also an "empirical" fact that someone else claims there are ulterior motives. There are all types of ways to subvert a democratic process and make it look like a wiki is based on some sort of consensus. For example, a wiki may claim it is based on a conservative viewpoint, but the majority of conservatives may disagree with many key claims of the wiki or the management in general. If these conservatives bother trying to edit the wiki they may be reprimanded, banned, etc. If WikiIndex simply parrots the claims of a wiki's owner, we contribute to this deception. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
+:::::''"By basic information, I mean facts which can be verified empirically (the link, the underlying wiki engine, the statement of purpose, # of pages, etc.)."'' The statement of purpose can be completely misleading. It ''is'' a fact that it is the statement of purpose, but it is also an "empirical" fact that someone else claims there are ulterior motives. There are all types of ways to subvert a democratic process and make it look like a wiki is based on some sort of consensus. For example, a wiki may claim it is based on a conservative viewpoint, but the majority of conservatives may disagree with many key claims of the wiki or the management in general. If these conservatives bother trying to edit the wiki they may be reprimanded, banned, etc. If WikiIndex simply parrots the claims of a wiki's owner, we contribute to this deception. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
 :::::Basic information may include things like funding, biographical information about ownership, prior endeavors of the wiki's rulers, copyright information, backup service, etc. It is difficult to predict what some may find offensive, intrusive, or notable. Some information may seem unimportant until a wiki drastically changes. Wiki's become unavailable, they move, they may completely change an important "policy" or "custom"... [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
 :::::I would say the values of any sysops and prolific editors are a part of WikiIndex "policy", whether it is written or unwritten. Dilley's "policies" may keep you from enforcing your preferred policy, but I don't think that you would be involved in enforcing Dilley's "policies". Secondly, by posting "your policy proposal" (or Felix's paraphrase of "my" policy proposal :-)) you influence WikiIndex. I would think that is ''why'' Dilley would support commenting anywhere. If we can comment in articles, you are certainly welcome to comment on talk pages. I asked Dilley if he supports consensus, he said yes, and that if consensus is not possible, he would support a supermajority. It doesn't look like we will have consensus on this issue but it looks like a large majority (including editors and sysops) may favor "your" proposal. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
 : --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:32, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
 ::For people to rapidly find the best wiki to read, edit, or create, I think comparisons and  evaluations can be as important as the noncontroversial information. Many editors invest a lot of time in a wiki only to loose it all when the wiki dies. Or they find the community or management, overbearing, and wish they had contributed to a different place instead. If the license allows it, the content could be copied to another wiki, but this may be a lot of work and Google may penalize sites with duplicate content. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:41, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
+:::To be fair, I haven't read all of the exchanges about RW and the other controversial wikis. I read up the point where I start to get a headache and then move on to something else. :-) I wouldn't worry that much about spamming Recent Changes. That's why there's a watchlist to allow people to track only the pages they are interested in.
+:::Regarding sourcing, WikiIndex doesn't currently have policies regarding "reliable sources" or "verifiability". Wikipedians (like me) tend to act as though there are, but in doing so, we're really enforcing another site's rules where they don't apply. This is not to say that we shouldn't have policies on this, just that we don't now. So, in the case of RW, it is neither required nor prohibited to link to or quote secondary sources regarding the service outage. The question to be worked out by consensus is whether or not the cited coverage is beneficial or harmful to the listing.
+:::I've stated before that I don't think that it's WikiIndex's job to be a consumer protection agency. I tend to concur with David Cary's content routing system concept. But I have <s>come to realize</s> had pointed out to me and come to agree that there's nothing in WikiIndex's charter that says that it can't provide commentary on the sites it lists. However, I fear that the listings for controversial wikis will get bogged down in a morass of perpetual reversions between highly subjective statements. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 14:16, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
 == Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies ==