User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies: Difference between revisions

From WikiIndex
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(This is a page about what to expect of the administration or other editors. It is not exactly only about "policy" as set by the administration. See last post at bottom of page.)
 
m (Text replacement - "Spam Control Policy" to "Spam control policy")
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{RightTOC}}
(This is a derivative of an older version of [[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines]]. It was edited by Lumenos and has comments from administrators. [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines&oldid=72554 This] was the older version. Many seem to prefer something simpler without signed comments, quotes, etc. so I moved this page here and continued editing it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:07, 26 June 2010 (EDT)
----
----
{{TOC right}}


[[MarkDilley]] seems to be the only active [[bureaucrat]] around here. He has spoken recently in the [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy|block policy proposal]], claiming to support "[[SoftSecurity]]". One might put this in the context of his [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#Administrative_powers|recent decision to move five wiki articles to talk pages]]. He seems to favor protecting pages rather than blocking users. Now I see that this is much more effective, because some editors will simply get more IP addresses and create more user names when they are blocked, for example, through the [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Onion_Router Tor network]. [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page= But one such dissenter claims (by creating this message as a user name) "You'll have to lock talk pages too"]. Perhaps a threat to [http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:uoKLLo-HZ6UJ:rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php%3Ftitle%3DWandalism+rationalwiki.com/wiki/Wandalism+wandalism&hl=en&client=mozilla&gl=us&strip=1 wandalize] talk pages, if their demands are not met. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:07, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
The {{tag|WikiIndex}} administration is in the process of developing and explaining their {{tag|guidelines}}, principles, and policies. '''This page is being used for policy development and is not an official guide.''' For now, administrators monitor the site and may suggest better ways of doing things. Issues of immediate concern can be posted [[Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki|here]]. For a few simple guidelines, see [[WikiIndex:Editing etiquette]] or [[WikiIndex:Guidelines]]. For other guidelines, see [[:Category:Guidelines]]. Block policy is being discussed at [[WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy]].


'''For a few simple guidelines, see [[Editing etiquette]] or [[WikiIndex:Guidelines]]. For other guidelines, see [[:Category:Guidelines]].'''
Right now, we only have a couple of rules, which have arisen from direct experience:
#Actual [[WikiIndex:Spam control policy|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".
#[[Edit war]]ring and long arguments are not appreciated. If you find yourself repeatedly restoring content somebody else keeps deleting (or the other way around), let them have their way for the time being (administrators will appreciate this) and try a different approach:
::*Go to their discussion page and/or the article discussion page. Write a polite request, question, or justification for your position.
::*After a few posts, if you find the discussion is mostly argument, with no end in sight, you might ask your "opponent" to meet you at another location. For example, invite them to another wiki or the [[WikiIndex:Chatroom|WikiIndex IRC chatroom]].
::*You might create a voting poll on the article's talk page, to get feedback from other editors.
::*Ask your opponent if they will agree to the judgment of an arbiter. Anyone may be chosen as a judge for your issue, if you all can agree to it. (You may want to ask an arbiter how much they are willing to read before making their decision, so you have some idea of how much you need to reduce your summary.)
::*If these methods fail or you want a simpler solution, ask for arbitration [[Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki|here]] or on [[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|an administrator's]] talk page.
[[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT) [expanded by [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)]


The rest of the "policies" don't exist (or they are unwritten) aside from "[[Spam_Control_Policy|spam]]". This seemed to be a source of confusion and conflict so '''I made most of this article (with out asking anybody else)''' to sort through a number of these specific issues. Please add your suggestions or questions here or on the [[WikiIndex_talk:Policies_and_Guidelines|talk page]]. (You can create user name links easily with <nowiki>"~~~"</nowiki> or <nowiki>"~~~~"</nowiki>.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:09, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
A discussion of possible policies follows. See also [[WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines]]. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT)


The rest of this page should eventually link to policies and guidelines, but for now, it is being used to describe or develop, suggestions for etiquette, policies or guidelines. This is mainly a practical means to attempt to resolve disputes by mutual agreement in an "ethical standard". [[User_talk:Huw_Powell|Huw Powel]] doesn't like the idea. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:35, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
==Sources of inspiration==
Other wikis have been through this already and have developed interesting guidelines, some of which we could use ourselves.


== Notes to editors of this page ==
*Wikipedia says {{Wp|Wikipedia:Assume good faith}}.  This is important!
*WardsWiki has some words on [http://C2.com/cgi/wiki?GoodStyle Good Style] and a treatment of [http://C2.com/cgi/wiki?UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing].
*[[RationalWiki]] developed a set of "[http://RationalWiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards community standards]", and updated them successfully.  All is documented on the [http://RationalWiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:Community_Standards talk page] and its archives. (Added by [[user:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]])


===Your comments may be edited by others===
Feel free to add others. -- [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:56, 4 October 2009 (EDT)


'''ANNOUNCEMENT: <del>This is a proposal to adopt '''neutrality''' for this page.</del> Comments may be deleted or relocated (to a talk page). <del>Secondly, it is proposed that we do not post about any ''specific'' conflict that has been going on, but instead ''speak only in terms of generalizations''. And that we move any of those comments that are already here, to a talk page (eventually), or delete them.'''</del> Any <del>such</del> comments that are relevant to policy [may eventually] be ''paraphrased into generalizations'', <del>which will remain where the comment was,</del> while the comment is relocated to a talk page or deleted. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:05, 5 September 2009 (EDT))[More strikeout and bracketed text added. I'm posting about specific conflicts now because Dilley doesn't seem to mind as Proxima did. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 19:09, 12 September 2009 (EDT)]
==Content inclusion rules==
'''The following are proposals''':
#Articles can say anything as long as no-one contests it.
#Articles should preferably stick to facts (e.g. "wiki X claims that Y on page Z").
The first was proposed on IRC by [[User:Lumenos]]; I think it is likely to cause trouble, hence my counter-proposal. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT)
:To be more accurate, I was proposing that you have a speedy delete policy that is connected to the [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy&direction=next&oldid=70264 block policy] for [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies#Biographical info|things like biographical information that is obtained in an "illegitimate" (or illegal) manner]]. Same with things [[WikiIndex:Spam control policy|like spam]] and copyrighted work. Beyond those basic ("common sense") rules, you might not need to forbid things like "[[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies#Bureaucrats|criticism]]", "original research", "unverified claims", etc, if these aren't contested. '''This is to address those who prefer NOT having "rules" that are "strict", "explicit", etc.''' I'm suggesting you need only get out the rule book when people [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies#Felix|aren't being "nice"]]. But if you want a smoother ride, it might be easier to have a policy that [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies#Criticism of wikis|wiki articles are to be always from a sympathetic viewpoint]], for example. This would probably be less controversial than allowing criticism. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:42, 23 June 2010 (EDT)


For example, someone posts this comment here, "I've been harassed by people from AboWiki. We should not allow this." This would be removed and a request would be placed on the commenter's talk page to propose that a specifically defined offense, be handled in a specific manner. So the proper way to propose a policy in this case would say: "I propose we do not allow editors to continue posting unanswered replies to a user's talk page. That we enforce this policy by first warning, then blocking the editor.<your signature>" ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:05, 5 September 2009 (EDT))  
==Criticism of wikis==
Criticism is controversial. The majority of the WikiIndex administration doesn't seem to like having to mediate and deal with conflicts. Therefore I am suggesting that wiki articles will probably have to be in a sympathetic viewpoint. A possible alternative is to streamline or "outsource", the process of dispute resolution. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)


Both this page and its talk page are '''for policy discussion''' only. If you have a specific grievance, you would like to resolve, follow the instructions on this guide, or see if [[:Category:Guidelines]] has more clues, on what you can do to have your issue resolved. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:05, 5 September 2009 (EDT))
===Bureaucrats===
MarkDilly seems to be the only active [[Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat|bureaucrat]], this is a quote from [[Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki#Conservapedia.2C RationalWiki etc|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]]''" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)


: '''''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]]'''''
===Sysops===
::The question is, what would be a better thing? I've listed some other options [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#How_sympathetic_or_critical.3F_.28Who_decides.3F.29|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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
[[Special:ListUsers/sysop|This link]] shows you the current [[sysop]]s.
::What potential problems do you see with this "NPOV" here? (It is not Wikipedia's NPOV, BTW) [[User:Lumenos|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". [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
====DavidCary====
::: '''I think that commenting on any page is ''allowed'' - that is how wiki has worked for many places before Wikipedia. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]'''
DavidCary (sysop) writing on this subject can be found [[Talk:RationalWiki/Archive1#Wikiindex|here]]. I am reproducing this quote below. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
----
----
I have been asked[https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavidCary&diff=59927&oldid=59646] how much criticism is appropriate in the this RationalWiki article.


(Here is [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view] if this may give us any ideas.) -- [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
May I remind everyone that you are now reading a page on the [[WikiIndex]]?
I believe that everything is on-topic somewhere[http://www.CommunityWiki.org/en/OnAndOffTopic].
However, that does not mean that everything is on-topic here at WikiIndex.


::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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
The WikiIndex page "The Conservapedia RationalWiki war" has been deleted because as far as I can tell (a) a better place for that content is at http://RationalWiki.com/wiki/Essay:The_Conservapedia_RationalWiki_War , and (b) that war is not a wiki, and therefore off-topic for WikiIndex.
::: '''''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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
:::: '''Ditto ~~ [[MarkDilley]]'''


Is [[RationalWikiWiki]] an entire wiki dedicated to criticizing RationalWiki? If so, I fail to see why that criticism needs to be re-iterated here at WikiIndex. And so I fail to understand why this WikiIndex page needs a criticism section.


Nevertheless, mentioning closely-related wiki is helpful for our target audience, and so I find mentioning RationalWikiWiki entirely appropriate in this article.


== Temporary purpose of this article ==
Is it obvious to everyone that I am strongly biased? --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 09:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)


Eventually this article should describe "the polices" of WikiIndex, but there is more than one way "the policies" may be defined or created.
More discussion at [[Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki#Conservapedia, RationalWiki etc]]. --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 09:42, 24 November 2008 (EST)
----
----
====Felix====
''"You just said it yourself: "they would be quite happy with no criticism and they don't know yet whether they should have to do any of this work". Can you guess why? Because they ''should not'' have to. [...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:47, 25 September 2009 (EDT)"'' [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=71987&oldid=71985]


Being that the majority of WikiIndex articles are [[OpenEdit]], and these sorts of wikis generally claim to favor consensus, I ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) have taken the initiative to try to build consensus and measure consensus. In so doing I realize that this will have to be broken into the following projects:
The following quote is much longer but this is the only part that I perceive to be somewhat accurate. (Click the link to see it "in context") [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) ''"It's not that you posted criticism, or that your criticism was deleted. It's that you kept posting it right back many times, against the obvious wishes of a peer[...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)"'' [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=72019&oldid=72009]
*Describe the policy of active administration:
:It was more like ''numerous'' "peers", nearly all of whom are [[bureaucrat]]s at [[RationalWiki]] ([[user:Nx|Nx]] is not a "bureaucrat" currently but [[user:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] claims Nx is able to directly edit the database [http://RationalWiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANx&diff=605939&oldid=604243]). The "other peers" were anonymous edits. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
**The claimed or idealistic policies of active administrators.
**A description of how the administration actually behaves (from the view of editors or critics who intend to alert people of the "actual" policies or the way the wiki is actually run).
*Describe consensus among editors (this is particularly important in an [[OpenEdit]] wiki, in light of "editors powers" listed in the section "Enforcement against editors". Editors do seem to have a say in some policies, even when certain sysops do not agree.):
**Describe the claimed or idealistic policies of the wiki editors by the following criteria:
*** "Measured" by petitions (if they participate in this process).
*** "Measured" by requests or ideals expressed a dialogs such as talk pages (if the editors are not directly participating in petitions).
**A description of how the editors actually behave (based on edit histories of active editors) and how this may influence the content or "policy" of WikiIndex.


== Enforcement policies ==
''"You've asked elsewhere about my plans. Honestly, I'm one step away from locking the RationalWiki article for a looong time and stripping it down to the boilerplate. I'll even link to your criticism if you care to post it elsewhere[...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)"'' [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=72019&oldid=72009]


All policies should (eventually) include what type of "enforcement" is appropriate for the "violation". Block policy is being discussed [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy|here]]. I ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) suggest we clearly separate the [[Editing etiquette|etiquette policy]] from the [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy|enforcement policy]], because "enforcing politeness" isn't always polite nor is is always practical at archiving its ends.
''"Lumenos, all those conflicts you're referring to are over this one article. Which is just one among thousands here. Do you think it's so special to me? It's not. You made it so, by fighting other [[editor]]s over it, and I'm fed up with that. What I ''really'' want is to delete it permanently, and if that wasn't so blatantly against the goals of WikiIndex, I would.[...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:50, 1 October 2009 (EDT)"'' [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=72124&oldid=72122]
----
----
Please understand, the reason I am posting these quotes is '''not''' to reignite an old conflict, but rather to show the difficulties involved with creating articles here, that are not in the "sympathetic" point of view. The [[Lumeniki]] article is another example. Two [[editor]]s deleted large amounts of it on the grounds that it is too long for a "vanity wiki" or that the style was inappropriate. MarkDilley responded with this comment ''"I wouldn't say it was the norm, but it doesn't strike me as being 'wrong'."''[https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ALumeniki&diff=70688&oldid=70628] [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)


===Enforcement against editors===
==Disputed information==
All policies should denote what type of enforcement is appropriate for the policy. Here are some suggested "categories of enforcement" against editor's violations of policy:
*'''Tag:''' Placing "<del>warning</del> tags" on info that is dubious, impolite, etc. ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
====Editor's powers====
*'''Etiquette:''' Guide to help polite people to be polite. Does not imply any enforcement. (You may edit this page.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:But the real etiquette page is [[WikiIndex:Editing_etiquette|here]]. Dilley has [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3AEditing_etiquette&diff=70385&oldid=70231 edited the etiquette guideline now]. You could perhaps edit that one, but it is more official now, I'd say. For example, Dilley deleted my edit of it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:36, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
* '''Tag:''' Placing "warning tags" on info that is dubious, impolite, etc. What categories of info warrants this? You could alternatively change the information (without deleting or reverting). ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
:* Warning tags are too strong - I like the idea of tags and think they should point to constructive information. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]
:* Warning tags are too strong - I like the idea of tags and think they should point to constructive information. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]
::* I agree. ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
::* Okay, that makes sense for dubious, impolite info. We have page deletion tag that may serve as a "warning". Another example might be a tag if a page may be relocated to the talk page. Something about how this can be prevented. Once we have policies, the tag may point to the relevant polices. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::* Err um ([[User_talk:This_is_not_the_solution#Thanks_to_everyone_for_the_cooling_off_-_here_is_my_idea_on_how_to_move_through_this.|then Dilley moved a few wikis to their talk pages without so much as a warning tag on them]]). (See "Protect page", then, "Relocating an article about a wiki, to the talk page and locking the article".) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
*'''Ridicule:''' IMO a fairly standard practice of the [[RationalWiki]] mafia (myself included). Try to use for the betterment of WikiIndex and the world, if possible. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:41, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
* '''Labeling opponents:''' Some terms [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] suggests you might try:
:* Troll, for example [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll concern troll] (see [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User:Nx&oldid=71273]). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:* [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Cyberstalker Cyberstalker] (see [[User_talk:Lumenos#More_about_Rpeh|A web search on "Rpeh"]]) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:* [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikilawyering Wikilawyer] (see [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:(Note, if I were labeling Lumenos, I'd probably go with more traditional labels such as: paranoid, delusional, arrogant fumbling buffoon, etc. :-) I luvz the wikis cause I can go back and fix all me retardations, but let me assure you, they are not exactly intentional. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:21, 12 September 2009 (EDT) )
:But in all seriousness I think it much more precise and constructive, to label specific statements using tags or quotes, rather than labeling editors. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:06, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
*'''Pointy edits:''' Making edits that are designed to be temporary, to prove a point. This could not possibly be a form of trolling because [[User_talk:Lumenos#Nx_do_you_not_want_people_to_know_what_you_are_doing_here.3F|Nx did it (-; (see 4th post down)]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:56, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
*'''Edit sparring:''' Some wikis consider it "edit warring" and baaaad to undo edits. [Since so few are interested in policy development] Lumenos suggest Wikipedias "three revert rule", as a matter of etiquette. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:16, 12 September 2009 (EDT)[Update [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:50, 12 September 2009 (EDT)]
:*'''Edit conflicts:''' Posting a rough draft fast, then making corrections to an article someone else is likely to be trying to edit, which cause them edit conflicts. (May or may not be "intentional".) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:00, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
* '''Relocate:'''
:* See "Protect page", then, "Relocating an article about a wiki, to the talk page and locking the article".
:*'''Relocating talk page comments:''' I propose to relocate comments, for example, [[User_talk:MarkDilley#The_lunatics_have_taken_over_the_asylum.|"attention mongering" on Dilley's talk page]]. That means, for example, making no meaningful request and providing no .useful information. Relocate these to one of the editors' talk pages. This seems to be a "problem" with editor who have been blocked from editing here before. Maybe it is fun for us, but that really isn't the place for I to be tickling me hobgoblin. That is, unless the administration would prefer we do these things on Dilley's page. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:30, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
* '''Eventual deletion:''' What categories of info should be deleted eventually, if the warning tags are ignored?
* '''Request or alert:''' Tell the violator of the policy about your perception and reasoning. This could be done on their talk page or on the talk page of articles.
* '''Speedy deletion'''
* '''Request administrative action:''' Request one of the following administrative actions listed under "Administrative powers".


====Administrative powers====
*'''Relocating an article about a wiki, to the talk page, and locking the article:'''
*'''Protect page:'''
:Are we supposed to be agreeing on a version of the article? [...][[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:24, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
:*'''Relocating an article about a wiki, to the talk page, and locking the article:'''  
::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]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:11, 14 September 2009 (EDT)
::* I propose that the administration '''not''' protect articles, simply because there is "edit warring" over them, unless someone requests protection. If an administrator personally feels the article is biased, etc, that would be another "good" reason to protect an article, in my view. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:32, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
::*([[User_talk:This_is_not_the_solution#Thanks_to_everyone_for_the_cooling_off_-_here_is_my_idea_on_how_to_move_through_this.|Dilley moved a few wikis to their talk pages without so much as a warning tag on them]]).  Cap'n, perhaps it is not my place to know, but is there any way of predicting which way this ship is going, before we get there? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:13, 8 September 2009 (EDT)
:::*He did [[User_talk:This_is_not_the_solution#Thanks_to_everyone_for_the_cooling_off_-_here_is_my_idea_on_how_to_move_through_this.|warn/suggest this to editors]] but I didn't come across any instructions for how editors may have avoided this or when/why it was going to happen. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:10, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
:::*Some questions:
::::What is the purpose of doing this? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:06, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
::::How can editors avoid this happening, in the future? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:06, 9 September 2009 (EDT)
::::What do editors have to do, in order to have the article pages unprotected? We are told, "[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki&diff=70872&oldid=70839 Move to article page when agreed upon by 3 Sysops and 3 people involved in the conflict]". When ''what'' is agreed upon? The only people I've come across, who seem to possibly want the article protected is [[MarkDilley]] and maybe [[DavidCary]]. So everyone I thought was involved in the conflict presently, (I think that is just me and whoever is still left of the RationalWiki mafia ;-) don't want the article protected. We already agree on that. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:24, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::Are we supposed to be agreeing on a version of the article? If that is the case, it would seem you would have to protect the article after this version is moved out. This seems to contradict the spirit of [[OpenEdit]] and is not ideal. If we are not going to protect the version that is moved out, then I suppose there would need to be some guideline as how the article may be altered, after it is moved out. Like that certain things should not be added or deleted, from the article. Otherwise I don't see this as any different than agreeing to unprotect the page (and reopening "conflict"). (Although I think there is less "conflict" now that Proxima and Nx are less interested in WikiIndex.) [[User:Lumenos|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]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:11, 14 September 2009 (EDT)


* '''Oversite:''' I believe this means removing something from edit histories, logs, etc. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:10, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
==Point of view, commenting in articles==
* '''Block editor:''' See [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy]].
[I suggested what I thought would be called a "neutral point of view" for this article. [[User:Lumenos|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 [[WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines#How sympathetic or critical.3F .28Who decides.3F.29|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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
::What potential problems do you see with this "NPOV" here? (It is not Wikipedia's NPOV, BTW) [[User:Lumenos|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 war]]ing or flaming. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]'''


===Enforcement against administrators===
::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". [[User:Lumenos|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]]'''


("Administrators" are [http://wikiindex.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=50&group=sysop sysops] or [http://wikiindex.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=50&group=bureaucrat bureaucrats])
(Here is {{Wp|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view}} if this may give us any ideas.) -- [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]


I ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) suggest editors are welcome to enforce policy that may be in conflict with administrators actions. See "Editors power's" above for things you can do without administrative assistance.
::Another idea would be to use the [[talk page]] for "comments" but <del>the whole thing is pretty much my "POV", so</del> I don't want to exclude others. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 
:::'''''Glad that you are interested in inclusion. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]'''''
The rest of this section is about how you may enforce policy against administrators, if you convince other administrators that they have violated policy.
:::I feel strongly that we should be signing our proposals and claims here and I thank you for doing so. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT)
 
::::'''Ditto ~~ [[MarkDilley]]'''
====Communicating during blocks====
 
Before attempting to enforce policy against an administrator, you may want to get other administrator's or editors email addresses, or find other websites where they can be contacted, so that you will be able to communicate with them, if you get blocked.
 
====Suggested requests====
 
What you may request of other administrators if you have evidence that an administrator is in violation of policy:
 
* '''Undoing the block or protection'''
* '''Dispute resolution''' (Ask another sysop)
* '''Demotion of the administrator''' (temporarily or permanently)
 
====Bring this evidence====
 
Don't waste their time, bring your evidence and be concise. For example, if you believe a sysop has blocked a user or protected a page without good reason. Do the following:
*Copy their stated reason for the blocks, protection, or deletion. (This should be in the [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page= block log], [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page= protection log], or [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page= deletion log]. If they did not leave a reason, state that they left no reason.)
*Copy the date of the block, so the block can be found easily in the log.
*Check the "user contributions" and copy a link to the diff showing the "offenses" which should be the administrator's stated reason for the block.
**Note, this information may not be available if an administrator decides the edit is not suitable to remain in the page history. (This is called an "oversite", I think.) In this case you may request that both parties privately email you their version of the event, or anything they claim to have copied, and you may privately email these to another administrator for review.
*State your request (see "Suggested requests", above)
*Explain which policy you believe they have violated.
 
=== Excluding wikis from WikiIndex ===
 
''The following is a [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy#Biographical_info|quote of sysop DavidCary]]:'' "[[Category talk:Wiki Edit Mode | As I have said before]], in my opinion, every publicly-available wiki should be listed on this WikiIndex, no matter how evil. The only exception is when that wiki's owner or that wiki's community chooses to [[WikiIndex:OptOut]]. (Although I don't understand why one would put a wiki on the public web, but not want anyone to know about it, I will respect such wishes)." [[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:35, 2 September 2009 (EDT) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
 
''The following is a [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy#Biographical_info|quote of sysop DavidCary]]:'' "[[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#some_wiki_seem_to_be_blocked | Others]] seem to agree with my "completist" preferences." [[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:35, 2 September 2009 (EDT) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
 
''The following is a [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy#Biographical_info|quote of sysop DavidCary]]:'' "You may be able to convince me that we shouldn't display offensive wiki logos, and perhaps you may convince me that we shouldn't make an easily-clickable active link to an illegal site." [[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:35, 2 September 2009 (EDT) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
 
''The following is a [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy#Biographical_info|quote of sysop DavidCary]]:'' "But to completely censor every mention of a wiki? How does "pretend that evil wiki don't exist" help our users?" [[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:35, 2 September 2009 (EDT) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
:If it is a question of something our readers need to know, of course. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
:It wouldn't help our users, necessarily, it may help whomever the evil wiki is being evil ''to'', by giving the wiki an incentive to change their evil ways. But you know, there is evil and then there is evil... oh yeah, then there is evil. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
 
==How sympathetic or critical? (Who decides?)==
 
We have the following options:
*Allow only the sympathetic view in articles. (Criticism can be done on the talk pages anyway, unless we limit this also.)
*Attempt a [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov Neutral Point of View] for articles.
*Attempt a [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov Neutral Point of View] for articles but allow a section for "critical" viewpoints.
*Have separate articles for sympathetic and critical viewpoints. Anyone would be able to create the critical article for any wiki, if they have a grievance or negative review (with the following limitations).
 
But, critical or not, '''all articles shall be restrained''' by the policies on:
*Notability
*Verifiability
*Constructiveness (so any criticism must be written in a way that it is suggesting what they could do better) (per  [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|bureaucrat MarkDilly's suggestion]])
*(See [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Block Wikipedia's block policy] per [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy#draft_blocking_policy_proposal|sysop DavidCary's proposal]].)
 
Are the articles on wikis to be sympathetic, critical, both, or "neutral"? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
:[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia supposedly uses the "neutral" approach].
::This offers much opportunity for censorship and edit waring. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Main_Page Wikinfo] deals with edit wars by making the [http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Wikinfo:Sympathetic_point_of_view 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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
:::It's cumbersome at [[Wikinfo]] but it's better than not allowing criticism at all.[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:34, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
:::(Proxima is a sysop here.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
:::I propose that critical articles may contain rebuttals to criticisms. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:33, 31 August 2009 (EDT))
:::'''MarkDilly seems to be the most (or only) active bureaucrat, [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|in one example he suggested a criticism page]] that was named like "Constructive Criticism of..." then he wrote the wiki's name, but I don't want to post that here because I'm trying to speak in the general sense although I should add that he did mention the wiki so this is not necessarily a policy he is suggesting for all wikis.''' [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:22, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
::::I second this uuh suggestion. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:05, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
::::I appreciate the restraint and professionalism that everyone is displaying here. I'd just like everyone to know that I'm not gonna post some witty statement like "BWAM", because that is not the purpose of this policy page. :-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::Uhh Lumenos he didn't say that the main article would link to the critical one. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::Doh! You shut up that is what he meant! [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 
I think that criticism should not be allowed at all, because it just provokes destructive debates; imagine if Proxima's complaints about her privacy had been left on a page dedicated to it &mdash; there would have been a bloodbath. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 12:21, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
:I think we should use various policies to mitigate both the criticism and the self-indulgence. For example, <del>[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov Wikipedias Neutral Point of View]</del> for main articles, if there are not special critical articles. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT) Update: Dilley opposes "Neutral Point of View" and I am not sure what it means to him but I think  our conversation [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#Your_comments_may_be_edited_by_others|here]] might be relevant to this. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:40, 6 September 2009 (EDT)
:Otherwise, let the main article be "sympathetic" and have separate critical articles (or sections), but both of these would be limited by notability and verifiability policy. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 
DavidCary (sysop) suggestion for one article on (24 November 2008) is [[Talk:RationalWiki#Wikiindex|here]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 
Should wiki articles be:
*[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&oldid=70631 neat and pretty]? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:41, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
*[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk:RationalWiki&oldid=71270 A fregan lolercoaster]? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:41, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
*[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&oldid=70457 A compromise]? I vote something like this. (Except that the similar wikis may represent bias and the link to the critical debate page should be in the criticism section. [And the criticism should be developed and organized (maybe as a real [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/Debate_map debate map])].) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:44, 10 September 2009 (EDT) [Update [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:15, 10 September 2009 (EDT)]


==Biographical info==
==Biographical info==
For now I would suggest the standard be defined by "local" laws and {{Wp|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Wikipedia's policy on biographical info}} until a standard more specific to WikiIndex can be established. ~~ [[User:Lumenos|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]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 12:07, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
::I'm really thinking more of {{Wp|Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10|the speedy deletion policy on "attack pages"}} but I am assuming certain things apply to [[talk page]]s, such as if personal information is posted. The more applicable policy would be under {{Wp|Wikipedia:Office actions|office actions}}. This is what it says, ''"The vast majority of cases are: libel, unjustifiable invasion of personal privacy, and copyright infringement. Since these are all inappropriate on Wikimedia anyway, office actions are preventable: if you see such a violation on a wiki, correct it or delete it and there will be no cause for complaint and no need for an 'office action'."''  [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 23:40, 22 June 2010 (EDT)


: ''"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." --  Eleanor Roosevelt''
==Common sense proposal [for this project page]==
 
Before biographical information should be posted about anyone (or their pseudonym), '''both''' of the following criteria should be met:
#The person meets [[WikiIndex:Notability|WikiIndex's notability requirement]].
#The information was obtained "legitimately": This may be defined by their level of consent, or at least it would probably have to be within legal requirements or WikiIndex may be subject to a lawsuit.
 
Who is "[[WikiIndex:Notability|notable]]" enough to warrant biographical info be posted about them?
----
 
'''Biographical information should not be included if it does not meet the following standard:'''
 
For now [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] suggests the standard be defined by "local" laws and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Wikipedia's policy on biographical info] until a standard more specific to WikiIndex can be established.
 
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]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 12:07, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
 
I'd really like to eventually allow editors to post some reviews of the administration of wikis, but that gets into the shady area of libel and it seems like we may just be better off with excluding all of it, if people are just gonna war about it all the time. It is fairly notable information, but I suppose the talk pages are serving that purpose alright for now. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:07, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
:Libel's not really your problem; the problem is the quality being compromised by people with unjustified vendettas putting silly claims there. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 17:12, 29 August 2009 (EDT)
::True, libel is not presently the problem. I'm glad you clarified that if that may be confusing to anyone. I'm speaking in terms of the future and establishing general principles. Perhaps in doing it this way I making it more complex than people would care to deal with right now. I'm thinking maybe I will just write a policy "proposal", which will be here, and we can see if anyone wants to express agreement or disagreement or rewrite any part of it, using the consensus and collaborative approach that we are all familiar with, being wiki editors. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:34, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
 
The following is up for review: please add your suggestions, comments, and questions:
 
===Youth===
 
Separate standards should be established based on age (note these would be in addition to local legal standards that already exist, someone might provide some links to those):
 
*Privacy of "children" (under 14 years of age)
*Privacy of "adolescents" (14 to 18 years of age)
*Privacy of "adults" (18 or older)
 
There is of course, a little difficulty, at least in distinguishing adolescents from adults and distinguishing children from adolescents when we are dealing with only text.
 
===Legitimate acquisition of biographical info about "adults"===
 
How the information was obtained:
*When the "victim" puts information about themselves, in a place on the Internet, that they know is visible to anyone who finds it (without any "hacking"):
*Communications in chatrooms. (Note this was added after Phantom Hovers comment dated 12:21, 30 August 2009. Please keep in mind that these "policies" may change. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT) ;-)
I would suggest that '''all''' of the below are illegitimate methods of obtaining information; the object of the outing did not intend for any of these to be published on the internet. Then again, I come from [[RationalWiki]], where it is considered an invasion of privacy to Google someone's name to find out information, though this is something of a point of contention. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 12:21, 30 August 2009 (EDT)
:That sounds good for we little people but I think we should have a different policy for particularly notable people such as those involved in high levels of government, major (multinational) corporations, or less centralized groups who are involved in mass killings, torture, [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions stuff like that]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:53, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
::So if editors/admins of WikiIndex find that a wiki does not (or cannot) promptly remove such information (when requested) should this be a basis for removal of the wiki from WikiIndex? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:49, 31 August 2009 (EDT)
 
*One on one online conversations (Note this was added after Phantom Hovers comment dated 12:21, 30 August 2009.)
*Someone reveals a secret about someone they know from real life:
**When the person is basically open about their "secret" but doesn't want it completely public or connected with certain online identities.
**Info gained from eavesdropping when a reasonable expectation of privacy would be expected.
*Photos taken of someone, their residence, automobile (license #), etc.
*Photos from outside, into someone's home or backyard.
*Hacking or wiretapping.
*(Any other ideas for the geek paparazzi?)
 
===Where should this information be forbidden?===
 
*Should this information be deleted from articles on WikiIndex?
**Sympathetic main article?
**Critical articles? (See section "How sympathetic or critical?")
*How about talk pages or edit histories:
**When it is for the apparent administrative purpose of "analyzing" the claims to determine enforcement or advice? (This may be more appropriately done through private correspondence.)
**When the apparent purpose of posting the "private" info is to "punish" or "protest" by means of exposing this "private" info?
*Will there be a minimum privacy standard that wikis will have to abide by, to receive a listing in WikiIndex?
**What standard shall we set for main articles?
**What standard shall we set for talk pages?
 
===Implementation or enforcement===
 
After we reach some consensus standard, '''as to what is polite or legitimate''', the second question is, what is the polite or legitimate way to implement or enforce these guidelines? Will censoring actually work or will it result in the [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Streisand_effect Streisand effect]? If you have even one determined "protester", privacy is quite difficult to protect once the "info genie" is out of the bottle. Especially when there are edit histories, and talk pages where most any info is generally allowed, forums where only administrators can remove info from posts, etc. No one is reading only this one site. The block, delete, and oversite policies must take into account the logistic/practical question of whether these measures will have the intended result. This has to be balanced according to <del>geek mob rule</del> [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#Community_consensus|community consensus]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
 
==Notability==
 
A notability guide concerning linking ("spamming"), in other wikis articles:
 
(See [[Talk:RationalWiki#Similar_wikis|Including Liberapedia in the RationalWiki article]].)
 
How large or active does a wiki need to be to be included in another wikis article? What is the minimum number of regular editors, if this is important?
 
Should the quality of the wikis content also be considered? If so, who is to make this evaluation?
 
How close to the subject matter do they have to be, to have a link on that wikis page? Most importantly, who decides this?
 
This wiki obviously can't use [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Note Wikipedia's notability policy] or it will end up with a tiny list like [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_wikis this].
 
==Verifiability==
 
For any controversial content I ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) propose that we adopt something similar to [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:VER Wikipedia's inclusion policy on verifiability] with some differences.
:Difference #1: We have a different notability requirement.
:Difference #2: Sources can be simply links so long as the info is easy to find on the link.
::If it is not easy to find, do something to make it easier to find the info.
:::Note to readers: You can use "CTRL + F" on your keyboard to find words or phrases on a web page.
 
([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:VER Wikipedia's verifiability policy])
 
Should WikiIndex make claims, quote sources, or only make claims as to what sources claim?
:I prefer to quote sources, but this is not customary here. So sometimes I write like "Bob claims that...", but this comes across as suspicious and can be very repetitive when everything is a claim I heard somewhere. Wikipedia's policy is probably the best compromise I can think of at the moment. References can be simple web links in the body of articles since this wiki doesn't really look like it is made for paper. Note that since WikiIndex inclusion policy is broader than Wikipedia, many sources will be self-published sources (Wikipedia ordinary does not allow these) who are only considered "reliable" for info such as describing their own intentions for their wiki's, etc. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:50, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 
Should WikiIndex allow editors to be "eyewitnesses" or speak in the first person?
:I think so. I think we should allow putting the "signatures" into the articles (as Lumenos does here using this "<nowiki>~~~</nowiki>" wiki markup code) if there is no link or reference that can be easily provided or when there is a reference but it is too long for most to read to find the relevant information. Newbies may not understand what these names are but I value accuracy and I think it is not too difficult to understand or it least, it shouldn't be too distracting if they want to ignore it. What do you think? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:50, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
::This may also help in evaluating an editors reputation, to establish whether they deserve more or less power. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:50, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 
===Examples===
 
''I recalled that RationalWiki's crash was "most likely due to a MySQL connection error". ~~ Lumenos''
:''Trent said it was a hardware error, but he didn't provide details. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 15:15, 9 September 2009 (EDT)'' (quote by Lumenos)
::I think that WikiIndex would be more accurate if people signed these sorts of "comments" they put into articles, or they quote a source. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 01:25, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
:::I think it would be best if you stopped [quoting me]. I only found this one by accident. On the signing idea, no. As for the reference,. here you go: [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Saloon_bar&diff=prev&oldid=429342] - he said he doesn't know yet what the exact cause was. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 02:51, 10 September 2009 (EDT) [I corrected this post for ya Nx [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:30, 10 September 2009 (EDT)]
::::I will consider your request. I personally don't mind people quoting me elsewhere without informing me, but I did post a link here in [[Talk:RationalWiki#Could_it_be_.7C337_h.40x0r5.3F|the original location]] (before reading your request here). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:56, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::I do mind because I lose track of the discussion. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 04:01, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::It's only a discussion if you know about it. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:37, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
:::::::Lumenos, you are quoting and abusing my posts to justify your silly ideas. There is no reason why quotes like this should be put in the article. You could just write that it was a hardware error and link to the post by Trent. [[User:Nx|Nx]] 04:40, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Abusing your posts am I? And that means, not using them as you had intended? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:44, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Why should WikiIndex stand behind a statement made by Trent. Why don't we just post a quote from Trent? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 06:54, 10 September 2009 (EDT)
 
==Community consensus==
To resolve or set boundaries on conflict, I ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]) suggest we work with the community here to establish policies that attempt to reflect how they want this content filtered and organized. And that any policies be updatable (deletable) according to how the community changes. By definition, we can only reflect the will of editors (not those who only read without leaving feedback of some sort) but we may put up some messages welcoming suggestions or questions as to the policy, and leave these pages [[OpenEdit]] as long as possible.
 
==Common sense proposal==
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.
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.) --[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 14:16, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
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.) --[[User:Bob M|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). ~~ Not Lumenos
: That was me, sorry. Forgot to sign. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:16, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
 
:How about if we just replace your section here with those words? I wouldn't do that, but you notice the irony? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:53, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:If you really think no one is going to read this page, why would you bother suggesting it be deleted? I think you are concerned about it giving me power. I'm paranoid however and have been wrong in the past. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:53, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:I don't think we should delete the edit by Proxima and especially not the one's by Dilley. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:25, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
:I don't think we should delete things that point to other statements or actions made by the administration. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:25, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
:Phantom Hoover's [ [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#Examples|and Nx's]] ] edits are at least as noteworthy as any of mine. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:33, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:If you disagree with any of my policy proposals, I believe you have just as much a right (per Dilley's suggestions under "Notes to editors") to delete my proposals. You could also move them to the talk page. I would rather you add your own and debate them but this page is already long and someone is going to have to start moving things elsewhere anyway. It would be nice if someone else would do this for a change so y'all can go whine at them instead of me. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:53, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
:What you are suggesting is basically what they have been doing, before I arrived. DavidCary was working on a block policy proposal, but that was only on a talk page ;-). There have been conflicts that have escalated to uncomfortable proportions. At least two admins did not know what to expect of the bureaucrat, until push came to shove. Same thing happened again [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#Administrative_powers|with Dilley's move of articles to talk pages]]. There was no explanation of how we could have prevented that or why exactly that happened. Is that what you are asking for? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:15, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
 
: ''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 [[User_talk:Lumenos#Please slow down|this one]] I moved [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines&oldid=71512 this page] to [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex policies (and drama)]] and will replace the page with the message Bob suggested. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 10:34, 14 September 2009 (EDT) )


[[Category: WikiIndex]]
: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]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:16, 13 September 2009 (EDT)
[[Category: Guidelines]]
:[I removed only my comments that had appeared here. [[User:Lumenos|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 war]]ring 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 [[User talk:Lumenos#Please slow down|this one]] I moved the content of [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines&oldid=71512 this page] to [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies|this subpage]], and replaced the page with Bob's suggestion. I have since moved administrative comments back in. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:22, September 21, 2009 (UTC))
:::There are currently three forks of the project page. I continued editing that older version I mentioned above and that can be found [http://Lumeniki.Referata.com/wiki/WikiIndex_%28unwritten%29_policies here] (although parts of the page I am commenting on right now, are more up to date). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:51, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 17:29, 11 January 2023

(This is a derivative of an older version of WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines. It was edited by Lumenos and has comments from administrators. This was the older version. Many seem to prefer something simpler without signed comments, quotes, etc. so I moved this page here and continued editing it. Lumenos 16:07, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

The WikiIndex administration is in the process of developing and explaining their guidelines, principles, and policies. This page is being used for policy development and is not an official guide. For now, administrators monitor the site and may suggest better ways of doing things. Issues of immediate concern can be posted here. For a few simple guidelines, see WikiIndex:Editing etiquette or WikiIndex:Guidelines. For other guidelines, see Category:Guidelines. Block policy is being discussed at WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy.

Right now, we only 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. Edit warring and long arguments are not appreciated. If you find yourself repeatedly restoring content somebody else keeps deleting (or the other way around), let them have their way for the time being (administrators will appreciate this) and try a different approach:
  • Go to their discussion page and/or the article discussion page. Write a polite request, question, or justification for your position.
  • After a few posts, if you find the discussion is mostly argument, with no end in sight, you might ask your "opponent" to meet you at another location. For example, invite them to another wiki or the WikiIndex IRC chatroom.
  • You might create a voting poll on the article's talk page, to get feedback from other editors.
  • Ask your opponent if they will agree to the judgment of an arbiter. Anyone may be chosen as a judge for your issue, if you all can agree to it. (You may want to ask an arbiter how much they are willing to read before making their decision, so you have some idea of how much you need to reduce your summary.)
  • If these methods fail or you want a simpler solution, ask for arbitration here or on an administrator's talk page.

Felix Pleşoianu | talk 03:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT) [expanded by Lumenos 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)]

A discussion of possible policies follows. See also WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 03:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Sources of inspiration[edit]

Other wikis have been through this already and have developed interesting guidelines, some of which we could use ourselves.

Feel free to add others. -- Felix Pleşoianu | talk 03:56, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Content inclusion rules[edit]

The following are proposals:

  1. Articles can say anything as long as no-one contests it.
  2. Articles should preferably stick to facts (e.g. "wiki X claims that Y on page Z").

The first was proposed on IRC by User:Lumenos; I think it is likely to cause trouble, hence my counter-proposal. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 03:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

To be more accurate, I was proposing that you have a speedy delete policy that is connected to the block policy for things like biographical information that is obtained in an "illegitimate" (or illegal) manner. Same with things like spam and copyrighted work. Beyond those basic ("common sense") rules, you might not need to forbid things like "criticism", "original research", "unverified claims", etc, if these aren't contested. This is to address those who prefer NOT having "rules" that are "strict", "explicit", etc. I'm suggesting you need only get out the rule book when people aren't being "nice". But if you want a smoother ride, it might be easier to have a policy that wiki articles are to be always from a sympathetic viewpoint, for example. This would probably be less controversial than allowing criticism. Lumenos 12:42, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

Criticism of wikis[edit]

Criticism is controversial. The majority of the WikiIndex administration doesn't seem to like having to mediate and deal with conflicts. Therefore I am suggesting that wiki articles will probably have to be in a sympathetic viewpoint. A possible alternative is to streamline or "outsource", the process of dispute resolution. Lumenos 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Bureaucrats[edit]

MarkDilly seems to be the only active bureaucrat, this is 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 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Sysops[edit]

This link shows you the current sysops.

DavidCary[edit]

DavidCary (sysop) writing on this subject can be found here. I am reproducing this quote below. Lumenos 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

I have been asked[1] how much criticism is appropriate in the this RationalWiki article.

May I remind everyone that you are now reading a page on the WikiIndex? I believe that everything is on-topic somewhere[2]. However, that does not mean that everything is on-topic here at WikiIndex.

The WikiIndex page "The Conservapedia RationalWiki war" has been deleted because as far as I can tell (a) a better place for that content is at http://RationalWiki.com/wiki/Essay:The_Conservapedia_RationalWiki_War , and (b) that war is not a wiki, and therefore off-topic for WikiIndex.

Is RationalWikiWiki an entire wiki dedicated to criticizing RationalWiki? If so, I fail to see why that criticism needs to be re-iterated here at WikiIndex. And so I fail to understand why this WikiIndex page needs a criticism section.

Nevertheless, mentioning closely-related wiki is helpful for our target audience, and so I find mentioning RationalWikiWiki entirely appropriate in this article.

Is it obvious to everyone that I am strongly biased? --DavidCary 09:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)

More discussion at Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki#Conservapedia, RationalWiki etc. --DavidCary 09:42, 24 November 2008 (EST)

Felix[edit]

"You just said it yourself: "they would be quite happy with no criticism and they don't know yet whether they should have to do any of this work". Can you guess why? Because they should not have to. [...] Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:47, 25 September 2009 (EDT)" [3]

The following quote is much longer but this is the only part that I perceive to be somewhat accurate. (Click the link to see it "in context") Lumenos 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) "It's not that you posted criticism, or that your criticism was deleted. It's that you kept posting it right back many times, against the obvious wishes of a peer[...] Felix Pleşoianu | talk 02:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)" [4]

It was more like numerous "peers", nearly all of whom are bureaucrats at RationalWiki (Nx is not a "bureaucrat" currently but Phantom Hoover claims Nx is able to directly edit the database [5]). The "other peers" were anonymous edits. Lumenos 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

"You've asked elsewhere about my plans. Honestly, I'm one step away from locking the RationalWiki article for a looong time and stripping it down to the boilerplate. I'll even link to your criticism if you care to post it elsewhere[...] Felix Pleşoianu | talk 02:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)" [6]

"Lumenos, all those conflicts you're referring to are over this one article. Which is just one among thousands here. Do you think it's so special to me? It's not. You made it so, by fighting other editors over it, and I'm fed up with that. What I really want is to delete it permanently, and if that wasn't so blatantly against the goals of WikiIndex, I would.[...] Felix Pleşoianu | talk 03:50, 1 October 2009 (EDT)" [7]

Please understand, the reason I am posting these quotes is not to reignite an old conflict, but rather to show the difficulties involved with creating articles here, that are not in the "sympathetic" point of view. The Lumeniki article is another example. Two editors deleted large amounts of it on the grounds that it is too long for a "vanity wiki" or that the style was inappropriate. MarkDilley responded with this comment "I wouldn't say it was the norm, but it doesn't strike me as being 'wrong'."[8] Lumenos 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Disputed information[edit]

  • 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
  • Okay, that makes sense for dubious, impolite info. We have page deletion tag that may serve as a "warning". Another example might be a tag if a page may be relocated to the talk page. Something about how this can be prevented. Once we have policies, the tag may point to the relevant polices. Lumenos 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
  • 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[edit]

[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

Biographical info[edit]

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)
I'm really thinking more of the speedy deletion policy on "attack pages" but I am assuming certain things apply to talk pages, such as if personal information is posted. The more applicable policy would be under office actions. This is what it says, "The vast majority of cases are: libel, unjustifiable invasion of personal privacy, and copyright infringement. Since these are all inappropriate on Wikimedia anyway, office actions are preventable: if you see such a violation on a wiki, correct it or delete it and there will be no cause for complaint and no need for an 'office action'." Lumenos 23:40, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Common sense proposal [for this project page][edit]

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))
There are currently three forks of the project page. I continued editing that older version I mentioned above and that can be found here (although parts of the page I am commenting on right now, are more up to date). Lumenos 15:51, 26 June 2010 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User:Lumenos/WikiIndex_(unwritten)_policies&oldid=266061"