Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines: Difference between revisions
WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines (edit)
Revision as of 19:37, 13 September 2012
, 13 September 2012{{TOCright}}, wikilinks
(→Proposal: Articles should preferably stick to facts: linking to conversation between David Shepheard and MarvelZuvembie on reviews of wikis and wiki farms (Wikia)) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m ({{TOCright}}, wikilinks) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOCright}} | |||
<table align="right"><tr><th>Archives:</th><td>[[WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines/Archive1|1]]</table> | <table align="right"><tr><th>Archives:</th><td>[[WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines/Archive1|1]]</table> | ||
{{Clear}} | {{Clear}} | ||
| Line 6: | Line 7: | ||
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.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 03:29, 2 October 2009 (EDT) | 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.--[[User:Bob M|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." [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=70373] 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. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 17:11, 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 [[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]." [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=70373] 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. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|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? [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 02:03, 6 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? [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 02:03, 6 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
== Proposal: Articles should preferably stick to facts == | == 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. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 04:52, 4 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
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. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 04:52, 4 October 2009 (EDT) | :[[:Category:Wikipedia|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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 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. [[User:Lumenos|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 [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/WikiIndex_(unwritten)_policies#Verifiability here]. (Another scuffle broke out [[Talk:RationalWiki#Edit_wars|over an ambiguous statement]]. This is where "assume good faith" comes in.) [[User:Lumenos|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 [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/WikiIndex_(unwritten)_policies#Verifiability here]. (Another scuffle broke out [[Talk:RationalWiki#Edit_wars|over an ambiguous statement]]. This is where "assume good faith" comes in.) [[User:Lumenos|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 [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php Cite] and [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions ParserFunctions].) [[User:Lumenos|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 [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php Cite] and [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions ParserFunctions].) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
:::::By the way, I looked back at it just now and I'd say their version was better overall because it was much more condensed without the quoting. I didn't want to make the claims myself. It is difficult for me to sacrifice "accuracy" (quoting) for brevity and "readability". But the "conflict" was when Proxima restored my and her edits, then protected the page, presumably enforcing the "[[WikiIndex:editing etiquette|no deleting policy]]". That happened when I wasn't around for a while. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | :::::By the way, I looked back at it just now and I'd say their version was better overall because it was much more condensed without the quoting. I didn't want to make the claims myself. It is difficult for me to sacrifice "accuracy" (quoting) for brevity and "readability". But the "conflict" was when Proxima restored my and her edits, then protected the page, presumably enforcing the "[[WikiIndex:editing etiquette|no deleting policy]]". That happened when I wasn't around for a while. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
[[ | [[WikiIndex talk:Community talk#Site reviews|Found something from May of 2009]] where [[user:David Shepheard|David Shepheard]] and MarvelZuvembie discuss reviews of wikis and wiki farms ([[Wikia]]). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:37, 23 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
== Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies == | == Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies == | ||
Just a few snippets I liked: | 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." | : "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." | : "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" | : "The way things are done around here is the way things are done around here" | ||
| Line 73: | Line 72: | ||
== When Huw deleted 90% of the page == | == When Huw deleted 90% of the page == | ||
[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72573&oldid=72554 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". | [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72573&oldid=72554 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 [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=71068&oldid=71030] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=70634&oldid=70618] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70039&oldid=70035] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70631&oldid=70606].) | :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 [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=71068&oldid=71030] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=70634&oldid=70618] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70039&oldid=70035] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70631&oldid=70606].) | ||