WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines

Proxima's (initial) support of criticism

(Proxima is no longer an administrator, so I moved these comments from the project page to here. Lumenos 23:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT))

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

Wikipedia supposedly uses the "neutral" approach.

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

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

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

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

I actually would have preferred entire pages for criticism like MarkDilley suggested but I'm not sure if that is possible while leaving the articles OpenEdit. Lumenos 23:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

Misc issues

I've looked briefly at your suggested guidelings and it looks like something that we can discuss. Frankly I've had trouble with those who want me fired before and I know them, I think they're just trolling me. I'd rather stay an admin here but if things go wrong there's plenty for me to do elsewhere online or offline. Proxima Centauri 03:11, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Do you know if the owners of WikiIndex support a consensus approach? Is the opposition pretty much out of luck as far as any disagreement with you, in other words? Lumenos 04:59, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't mean to pry, but when you say "fired" does that mean you are a paid employee? Lumenos 04:59, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

If you have already decided on what conditions you are willing to work here, I'd be interested in that. If the owner agrees or disagrees to your terms, then we will have some official policy. I don't see this as democratic but it would save time, if that is what it comes down to. Lumenos 04:59, 29 August 2009 (EDT)

Lumenos seems to have one agenda here, and that is fairly clear when one looks at L's contribs.

I think the general policy here is to simply describe wikis, not to engage in petty arguments about their worldview. Huw Powell 07:14, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

It doesn't look like Proxima has any serious intentions of leaving, so the subject of this thread is concluded, as far as I am concerned. I will quote your accusations on your talk page, and respond there. Lumenos 05:32, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

---

I applaud your attempt at making clear to everyone what our policies and guidelines are. All too often one person thinks one action is the obvious common-sense right thing to do, and that one thing is, and always has been, the policy; while someone else thinks the same thing about some conflicting action. Best to get everyone on the same page before some emergency erupts.

However, although I think "documented rules" are better than "unwritten rules", I think a more important principle is "Keep it simple". Also known as Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep.

Is there is a better wiki somewhere for discussing the *potential* kinds of rules that a wiki *could* set up? One that could calmly discuss the pros and cons of a particular policy, and its impact if all/most/some/none new wikis adopted it. Perhaps MeatballWiki ? --DavidCary 00:28, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Parts of it may be appropriate at MeatballWiki, but much of it is specific to this wiki and its editors and administration. I'm responding to some conflicts amongst the administration and editors here. I've gotten some support from Proxima both here and on my talk page, and no objections thus far. Again, I apologize for my embarrassing blunders on your talk page. I'm usually not that absent minded. Lumenos 08:40, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Do you know if the owners of this wiki favor a consensus approach to resolving conflicts or developing policy? By that I mean involving and inviting the community of administrators, editors, and readers to collaborate to develop policy, etc? I think that fact would illuminate a description of the policy to a great degree. It would also save me a lot of time trying to derive consensus if this won't be allowed anyway. Lumenos 08:48, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

As far as keeping it simple. Well, do you want me to just make up some rules? :-) Lumenos 09:54, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

I put a notice at the top saying, "For a few simple guidelines, see WikiIndex:Guidelines. For other guidelines, see Category:Guidelines." There is not much there however. People get fairly heated with this stuff and I think there is a need to address issues of how to properly go about attempting to "force" one's will, when people don't agree. So I see policy solely as a means to resolving conflicts. Lumenos 09:54, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

I don't mind if you want (me) to move some or all of it, but one problem is that it would give me some work to do because I may fix all the "interwiki" links I created, to it. (I've created links to specific sections in it.) I do that to divert people's aggression, into a constructive means of building consensus. So when a squabble breaks out, I send someone the link and I say, here Genius, you know how everyone should act make up some rules for us. :-) Which they usually don't do, but thus far I've been pleased with the progress of one wiki article. Someone who was protective of the wiki, agreed to a criticism section and they actually posted it themselves. They also have been allowing a link to a sort of "rival wiki". Lumenos 13:03, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

How to do this sort of thing

You talk on the talk page, find areas that people agree on, and eventually make the "article". The way this is being done is a disaster. A mess. And Lumenos is linking to it as a "policy" page on user talk pages. Huw Powell 01:02, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Find me something closer to a policy page and I will link to that. It clearly states the lack of clear policy. Lumenos 03:36, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

And my user page clearly states that I have no special power here other than "reason". Lumenos 03:38, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, but maybe no one cares what you want the policy of WI to be, other than you. Huw Powell 05:51, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Dear Huw Powell,

You talk on the talk page? Is that so? Many editors here came from wiki that didn't have a talk page (such as, for example, the original wiki). If that is really such a good idea, then maybe a written guideline would help us, explaining why that works better than the alternatives.

maybe no one cares what you want? Did you really intend to sound this rude?

what you want the policy of WI to be? Are you reading the same page I'm reading? From reading this page, phrases like "... standards should be established ..." and "Please keep in mind that these "policies" may change" make it sound like the writer is not trying to push through any particular policy. Rather, it sounds like that writer is curious as to our actual policies, and is pointing out various areas where a clear written policy might be a good idea.

a disaster. A mess. This is a wiki. Therefore, if you see a disaster, please fix it. If a page is unfixable, slap that Template:Tl template at the top. With respect, --DavidCary 02:35, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Hi David, "Many editors here came from wiki that didn't have a talk page" - but those of us who have editing wikis that have discussion (talk) pages for years have no way of knowing that. It's like that "real name goes in the mainspace" thing - had I known that I would have simply used a common pseudonym I employ when I signed up.

"maybe no one cares what you want" I'm looking for where I said that, was it the edit comment? Yeah, sorry, that Lummykin guy gets on my tits with his often incomprehensible approach.

I guess part of the "disaster/mess" comment is a result of my being involved in working out policy pages on their respective talk pages on a wiki that is more active than this one. We used a draft version in the project page, and headers in the talk page that made it clear what was being discussed in each section, and it worked well, and left a clear record behind of how the project page came to say what it says. I guess you guys are just used to working in a way that seems very foreign to me. Where might I find more information about this mode of working? Oh, and where is this "original wiki" I keep reading about? Best regards, Huw Powell 17:06, 11 September 2009 (EDT)

Is there something stopping you from going to an official policy discussion page and doing what you suggest? Or is mine just a bit too interesting for Huw to resist ;-)? Lunemos 15:01, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

What I find lacking in say, Wikipedia's policies:

• No reliable sources, for their claims. It's a policy about what some powerful editors would like "the policy" to be. Doesn't necessarily reflect how the machine actually functions. Which brings me to my next point. Lumenos 15:03, 12 September 2009 (EDT)
• Failure to distinguish between stated "policy" and the actual behavior of the administration or editors. Lumenos 15:03, 12 September 2009 (EDT)

This page is mostly not my recommendations on policy. It is an outline of issues that have been sources of conflict here. There are many links and quotes to what I have found the administration saying or doing. You can post your "policy recommendations" in talk pages, if you wish. I would think you might have better luck posting them on this "policy article", but, then again, when you do that, it makes it look like more of a legitimate collaborative project, doesn't it? It is understandable that this would be a fear of yours, given my interest creating criticism pages for controversial wikis. Lumenos 04:43, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

By the way, how do you feel about the RationalWiki article (and those other four wikis) having pages for constructive criticism? The clock is ticking and you never know what Dilley may spring on us next. You might consider what happened the last time y'all just ignored his recommendation and continued in your squabbling. And you might consider one of his other recommendations (which I support, if that matters). Lumenos 04:57, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

This is how I choose to react to Dilley's decision to move those articles to talk pages. He has spoken in that location before; maybe he will respond there. I think he has more incentive to consider my questions, in that location, rather than when you post un-constructive complaints on talk pages. So that is my way of doing this sort of thing. Good luck in yours. Lumenos 04:43, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

Dear Huw Powell,

Yes, I also find Lumenos often incomprehensible. . I don't know what "the clock is ticking" refers to.

"I'm looking for where I said that" On most web browsers, Ctrl+f helps you find text on the current web page.

"where is this "original wiki" Somewhere in the WikiIndex is a link to the WikiWikiWeb.

I think most of the "quirks" you see at WikiIndex are merely the result of this being a low-editing-traffic site; and so the quirks and "temporary" experiments of the most recent two or three editors color this wiki much more strongly than at higher-volume wiki.

"... have no way of knowing that... had I known that I would have ... Where might I find more information about this mode of working?" When you say things like that, it makes me think that you wish someone had written down these unwritten traditions we have at WikiIndex. Please help us write these things -- and please do persuade us to consciously discard unproductive traditions and add better traditions.

Dear WikiIndex editors,

Huw Powell's suggestion to "find areas that people agree on" and "used a draft version in the project page" sounds like a good idea. So I moved discussion from the main page to the talk page at WikiIndex:Blocking Policy ( [1] ).

Should we do the same "move discussion to talk page" with this WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines page? Should we merge User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies into this talk page also? --DavidCary 09:41, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Parts of User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies might work for this talk page but I mixed policy proposals with observations of the administration and editors. I'm gonna separate all that. I'm really confused as to what policies are currently in force and what role I am being permitted or invited, to play here. I'm attempting to minimize drawing attention to myself, by editing for WikiIndex off-site, and so that I can post things after I have had more time to develop them. Then I will post the policy proposals as subpages of this talk page. Lumenos 18:36, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

The other part of this is observations of WikiIndex. These are to help new editors know what is permissible or preferable here, by both editors and administrators. This is the "unwritten policy", so to speak. I will post these as subpages of my user page, if that is okay. That way I will only take up a section here, which will have links to the subpages. Maybe once a week or once a month (depending on my activity) I will merge the latest versions of these subpages with my own edits. This is to minimize "edit spamming" of Recent Changes. Lumenos 18:36, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

If anyone agrees with these proposals we could move them out to this talk page and I might directly ask some of the more involved admins (Felix, DavidCary, and Proxima if she still works here) for their votes, comments, or changes. If at least one of them agrees with a proposal and there are no objections, move them out to policy page with the names of all those editors and administrators, who support the policy. Put a history link to the exact version they signed, so the policy can still be changed without misrepresenting them. If we get a number of these, then I might ask the other administrators to vote, comment, or change these policies. This would probably take a number of months, if there is any interest. Lumenos 18:36, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

These "policy negotiations" may serve only as an agreement between myself and anyone I am having a conflict with. Or my proposals might not garner much interest. That is not a failure as far as I am concerned; I enjoy doing it just for the mental exercise and to understand wiki policy, morality, law, etc. I probably shouldn't go into my grandiose views on the potential of wikis, as I'm sure y'all think I am an obsessed nutjob, without me adding more fuel to the fire. (-; Lumenos 18:36, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

Previous contents were moved

The above discussion is relevant to the content of the project page before Dilley "seconded" Bob suggestion of replacing the page with a sentence. It was very long and many prolific editors and administrators commented on it. Dilley has asked that I slow down, but I may be permitted to develop the page further. It can now be found at User:Lumenos/WikiIndex policies (and drama) ~~ Lumenos 11:03, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

While I am flattered that my comments now grace the project page, it is possible that a little more consideration might have been in order before they were unilaterally imposed.--Bob M 14:05, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Well, is it better than before? I don't aim for perfection, only improvement. I plan to merge in administrative comments from the original. I'm not really sure what you or Dilley want, but feel free to revert, merge, or do whatever. Any "unilateral" edit in a wiki is subject to peer review and alteration. Lumenos 16:03, 14 September 2009 (EDT)

Irrelevant content

"Spam and irrelevant content will be mercilessly deleted."

Since I have been critical of article protections, I've been accused of "spamming" Recent Changes, by Dilley and then Felix. Ordinarily I would think Felix' rules are not in reference to what I was doing, but I'm not sure, given this (enraged?) reply. "Assume good faith." That would be nice. But my question is about the "irrelevant" content. Are you referring to talk pages, or only articles? It sounds sorta uum.... over the top, to say we are going to "mercilessly" remove something that is merely irrelevant. It is just weird after being accused of trolling and all these things. It is kinda intimidating. Maybe it is not meant to be. Lumenos 22:15, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

Twisting my words again, are you? Feel free to put milder words in that rule. It's just a proposal. I went out and put it directly on the actual page because nobody else would, but it's still just a proposal. As a wise man said, this website should be always under construction. Felix Pleşoianu | talk 00:58, 18 September 2009 (EDT)

Thank you for rewriting the policy proposal, telling us that this is not an official policy, and that you don't mind non-administrators editing it. I didn't know your intentions on those three subjects, until now. Lumenos 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

"Noncommercial" spamming

Category spam

We should probably have some criteria for a wiki to be included in a category. I propose it be that the wiki has at least so many characters devoted to the category subject, since this is relatively easy to measure by copying text into a text editor (if anyone cares to check). Only problem is it may be difficult to find the pages on these subjects. Lumenos 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

It would have to be an arbitrary number, say 15,000 characters on the category subject? Lumenos 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Edit spamming

Putting too many links to a single favored wiki unless it happens to contain information pertinent to the subject being discussed. For example, Wikipedia or MeatballWiki, are often cited regarding policy, definitions, etc. Lumenos 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Hijacking Recent Changes

A proposal that there shall be no specific rule against "hijacking" (spamming) Recent Changes, but that this would regulated by:

• The "commercial spam" policy.
• "Edit spam" policy.
• An etiquette policy on making the first edit right so it doesn't have to be corrected.
• WikiIndex inclusion policy. So long as the subject is otherwise appropriate for WikiIndex, I see no reason to make a specific rule against hijacking Recent Changes.

Lumenos 00:36, 23 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk on article page

While I am most reluctant to get involved in this debate (and I'll try to make this my only post on the issue), shouldn't everything below the first section of this project page be on this talk page instead? It seems a bit strange that the "Policies and Guidelines" page does not follow such a policy.--Bob M 03:29, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

I believe this is by design. Per Mark Dilley: "I think that commenting on any page is allowed - that is how wiki has worked for many places before Wikipedia." [2] I don't particularly care for it, as it muddies what is policy as opposed to what some people would like to be policy. But, then again, Wikipedia was the first wiki I ever edited, and that's the standard to which I am accustomed. More than once, I have errantly tried to apply Wikipedia policies to WikiIndex. --MarvelZuvembie 17:11, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

It made sense when wikis did not have "talk pages", indeed. But that was so 2003 or so, wasn't it? Now we have them, let's use them? Huw Powell 02:03, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Proposal: Articles should preferably stick to facts

I was initially under the impression that WikiIndex had such a policy, not unlike Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. However, somewhere along the line, Mark Dilley pointed out to me that the mission of WikiIndex does not preclude providing personal commentary on the wikis listed here. I'd link to this comment, but I no longer remember where this took place. Anyway, I think that this choice leaves us open to the edit wars which took place recently, which is why I'm not keen on it. Sticking to the facts is more akin to my way of thinking. --MarvelZuvembie 04:52, 4 October 2009 (EDT)

Wikipedia's policy on NPOV is connected to its policy on verifiablity. This usually requires third-party published sources. That would eliminate most of this wiki. Lumenos 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

I sorta agree with you, but it is easier said than done. I tried to post some "facts" in the RationalWiki article. My way of doing that is to quote sources and say who claimed what. Some problems with this are that it looks tacky, often sounds suspicious, and can be very repetitive when everything is something someone claims. More on that here. (Another scuffle broke out over an ambiguous statement. This is where "assume good faith" comes in.) Lumenos 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

(BTW, I've been trying to see if we can't get some extensions installed for footnotes/citations, to make these more tidy, but this wouldn't really solve the above issues. If I remember correctly we would need Cite and ParserFunctions.) Lumenos 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Dilley does seem to agree with "neutralizing" any comments that are added, by rewriting them. This would be better than altering quotes, in my view (another small "conflict" recently). Lumenos 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

One way of changing an unsourced claim a to "fact", is to put the editor's name on it. It is like using a "citation needed" tag. But that looks weird and may reveal conflict, which seems to make many people uncomfortable. Lumenos 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

You can write about criticism in a neutral way, simply saying someone claims something, but this may still be controversial. Comments are facts about what someone said. The question is more whether they are notable facts and whether we are going to allow criticism, links to criticisms, or debates. Lumenos 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

So I think the best way to deal with conflict is to invite everyone to help develop policy. For example if many admins agree on polices, most editors would probably go along with them or leave. It will take some time. There are many complex issues when you think about it, but I'm confidant that we will figure out how to meet our objectives, eventually. Lumenos 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

I copied this section title from the proposal on the article side of this project page. It wasn't my suggestion, although I agree with it. However, based on your response, I suppose the wording doesn't say everything that I would want it to. By "sticking to the facts", what I mean is to only cover the basic information about the wiki, specifically, the parameters in the Wiki template and a description of the wiki, preferably quoted from the main page of the wiki itself. By design, this would not include criticism, commentary, reviews, warnings, or caveats about the wiki. To my mind, regardless of how well sourced it is, opening the door to this kind of criticism leads to the kind of tiresome wikidrama which has been prevalent here in the last few months.

However, I wish I could find Mark Dilley's commentary on this. As I understand it, the founders of WikiIndex are not inclined to be as restrictive as I am. So, this proposal is probably doomed. :-) --MarvelZuvembie 17:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Oh you mean the invigorating wikidrama? ;-) That is much clearer; thank you. Lumenos 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

If we simply take what is on a wiki's mainpage, I would call this a sympathetic point of view rather than a neutral one. That basically lets the administration of that wiki decide what will be in WikiIndex. I think you may indeed get less edit warring over articles, that way. People might not agree with it but they are less likely to care since they are not protecting "their" wiki from (misleading) criticism. Lumenos 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

But when you say "basic" information, that is less clear. In the aforementioned conflict, the disputed content was concerning the coverage of the recent service loss of RationalWiki. I would consider that basic information. Perhaps you would too. So everything "controversial" can't be eliminated. Granted this stuff shouldn't be that controversial but I think it is just the surface of an underlying conflict that is only between one or more admins, and a few editors. Lumenos 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I believe readers benefit from much information that some would consider to be controversial, and I think it very possible to end disputes more quickly and efficiently by neutralizing claims in articles, streamlining (or "outsourcing") arbitration/debates, having clear inclusion policies, etc. Lumenos 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

Would your proposed inclusion policy also apply to talk pages? If not, I still think it would reduce argument, because articles are more prolific, but if you allow one editor to post something controversial on a talk page, there is likely to be a rebuttal. Lumenos 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I could be wrong but my impression from Dilley is that he is not trying to be the end-all authority on everything here. He was asked to help resolve a dispute but no one really gave him a realistic proposal on how to do that. That is what we can do here. What I'm seeing now is that some editors and admins are demonstrating their own personal policies, that they are following or considering. They may reveal their "policies" here, on other talk pages, or with their behavior. Next we start to join our policies together and form "alliances" ("consensus"). The purpose of "war", as I see it, is to demonstrate who has the power. When a side becomes convinced they will "loose", they usually "surrender" ("agree"). I'm trying to create incentives for people to engage in constructive policy development rather than edit warring, ridiculing, etc. It is up to the administration/owners to decide whether they will support this or allow edit waring and intimidation to determine the content of articles. Lumenos 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)

I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-(

Yes, I consider whether or not a site is up or down to be basic information. In the avalanche of messages pertaining to conflicts at RationalWiki, I hadn't even noticed that was one of the points of contention. By basic information, I mean facts which can be verified empirically (the link, the underlying wiki engine, the statement of purpose, # of pages, etc.). I differentiate this from people's subjective experiences with the wiki.

This proposal isn't mine, BTW. It was proposed by Felix. But in the interest of discussion, I thought it was worth commenting on. In practice, I long ago realized that this is not a policy of WikiIndex and have been acting accordingly.

You're right about editors applying their own rules to WikiIndex. It's a natural tendency for humans to create rules. In WikiIndex's case, many people have tried to apply Wikipedia's rules to WikiIndex. However, it's important to remember that they are not the same thing. WikiIndex does not have a NPOV policy. Maybe it should, but it doesn't currently. Although, as Mark Dilley is not a fan of this policy, I don't see it being implemented here.

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. --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. 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). 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. 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"... 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. Lumenos 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

I believe that everything is on-topic somewhere.

I see the WikiIndex as an early, manual version 2 of what will someday become the highly automated Project Space Network. Version 1 was the now-offline SwitchWiki. Perhaps someday the WikiProject:Wiki-Noding will become version 3, or perhaps we'll figure out a better way.

I see all of these as a kind of manual content routing system. This is a system for (a) people looking for information on some topic can rapidly find one or more wiki that are likely to have that information, and more importantly (b) people who want to discuss and explain what they know about some topic can rapidly find the appropriate wiki for them to start talking about that topic, and (c) people who recognize that a witty, insightful page is off-topic for one wiki can find some more appropriate place for that witty, insightful page.

I think that most information -- even extremely notable information -- does not belong on WikiIndex itself. I want WikiIndex to help me quickly find the wiki where any particular kind of information does belong.

--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. 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 come to realize 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. --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 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. 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. 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. 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 "no deleting policy". That happened when I wasn't around for a while. Lumenos 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies

Just a few snippets I liked:

"These are the guidelines defined by the RationalWiki community. These are not site rules but rather a list of standards we as a community try to live up to. Please do your best to live up to them."

"Our official policy on religion is that we do not have an official policy on religion. Our community of editors includes followers of various religions, as well as many atheists. Please bear this in mind when editing."

"The way things are done around here is the way things are done around here"

"Please keep in mind that the standards below are only an approximation of the site's working practices."

"don't panic"

There's a lesson or two in the above snippets. -- Felix Pleşoianu | talk 01:03, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Thank you, Felix. Those "guidelines" were the result of a lot of people's work, and one genius' inspiration. Hint: the genius weren't me ;) Huw Powell 01:59, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

When Huw deleted 90% of the page

Here is the edit and Huw's edit summary, "This looks to me like the most sensible version - please use the talk page to discuss changes rather than piling up quoted stuff on the project page".

Felix and I discussed this in chat (one of the reasons I don't like to use "private" correspondence for these things). One issue we apparently agreed on, is that having a policy that forbids deleting things can be a source of confusion, edit waring, and premature blocking. You might notice how three RationalWiki bureaucrats, you, Nx, and Phantom Hoover, often delete large amounts of work written by others. Isn't it kind of ironic that you would restore the policy that forbids this?... and that you do this by deleting a large amount of work written by others? If you think the most "sensible" version says, "Controversial content should also not be deleted, but debated on the talk pages and/or improved by adding quotations, references, and anything else that may serve as evidence for (or against) it," please tell us how a sensible administrator should react when you delete controversial content? (A few other examples of Huw deleting content that was apparently "controversial" to him [3] [4] [5] [6].)

Hi Lumenos. You forgot to sign your post. Yeah, I ripped out a bunch of tripe. Oh well, may I way have been wrong. But your axe-grinding is getting really tiresome. Huw Powell 02:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for indicating this was my post. Now prepare to be utterly humiliated when your fewlishness is exposed before all. ;-) Lumenos 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

I appologize if that appeared to be an "axe grind". I made my comments and questions as clear as I could. In contrast, declairing things "sensible" or "tripe", doesn't give us any reason to consider. Perhaps you were wrong, and maybe something you deleted wasn't tripe afterall? In the process of trying to argue a point or formulate a question, I often change my mind. I would think you should try that before making massive "corrections" to other people's work. On the other hand, maybe others find "long" arguments more annoying than deletions with trite explanations. Can't please everyone I guess. Lumenos 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT)