1,136
edits
WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines: Difference between revisions
WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines (edit)
Revision as of 04:04, 23 October 2009
, 23 October 2009→Proposal: Articles should preferably stick to facts
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
::::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) | ::::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 <del>make unsourced claims or</del> 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) | :::::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) | ||
| Line 154: | Line 154: | ||
:::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. | :::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) | :::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) | ||
::::''"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."'' I suppose if you '''delete''' unsourced information, you would be going against the [[WikiIndex:editing etiquette|etiquette policy]]. Dilley supports rewriting the work of others (as you would expect in a wiki). He also supports tagging, so long as this points to a constructive suggestion. I would think that would include a "citation needed" tag. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::There must be many exceptions to the "no delete policy". It seems to be a super "simplified" rule but it could use a link to more details about what ''should'' be deleted and how to deal with repeated deletions. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::''"So, in the case of RW, it is neither required nor prohibited to link to or quote secondary sources regarding the service outage."'' It may be against the "etiquette policy" to delete sources or quotes, if they are added. I didn't delete any unsourced information; they deleted the sources or quotes, when they rewrote the quotes as paraphrases. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::By the way, I looked back at it just now and I'd say their version was better overall because it was much more condensed without the quoting. I didn't want to make the claims myself. It is difficult for me to sacrifice "accuracy" (quoting) for brevity and "readability". But the "conflict" was when Proxima restored my and her edits, then protected the page, presumably enforcing the "[[WikiIndex:editing etiquette|no deleting policy]]". That happened when I wasn't around for a while. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies == | == Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies == | ||