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
m
Wikilinks
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Wikilinks) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==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 war]]s 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 war]]s 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) | :[[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia's]] policy on NPOV is connected to its policy on [[Verifiable|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/ | :(BTW, I've been trying to see if we can't get some extensions installed for footnotes/[[citation]]s, to make these more tidy, but this wouldn't really solve the above issues. If I remember correctly we would need [[mw:Extension:Cite|Extension:Cite]] and [[mw:Extension:ParserFunctions|Extension:ParserFunctions]].) [[User:Lumenos|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). [[User:Lumenos|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). [[User:Lumenos|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. [[User:Lumenos|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 "[[Template:Fact|citation needed]]" tag. But that looks weird and may reveal conflict, which seems to make many people uncomfortable. [[User:Lumenos|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.''' [[User:Lumenos|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 ''[[Notability|notable]]'' facts and whether we are going to allow criticism, links to criticisms, or debates.''' [[User:Lumenos|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 [[Sysop|admins]] agree on polices, most [[editor]]s 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. [[User:Lumenos|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 [[Sysop|admins]] agree on polices, most [[editor]]s 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. [[User:Lumenos|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 [[Template:Wiki|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. | ::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 [[Template:Wiki|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 | ::However, I wish I could find Mark Dilley's commentary on this. As I understand it, the [[founder]]s of WikiIndex are not inclined to be as restrictive as I am. So, this proposal is probably doomed. :-) --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 17:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Oh you mean the invigorating wikidrama? ;-) That is much clearer; thank you. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | :::Oh you mean the invigorating wikidrama? ;-) That is much clearer; thank you. [[User:Lumenos|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 war]]ring 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. [[User:Lumenos|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 war]]ring 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. [[User:Lumenos|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 [[Sysop|admins]], and a few editors. [[User:Lumenos|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 [[Sysop|admins]], and a few editors. [[User:Lumenos|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. [[User:Lumenos|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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Would your proposed inclusion policy also apply to [[talk page]]s? 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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | :::Would your proposed inclusion policy also apply to [[talk page]]s? 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. [[User:Lumenos|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 war]]ring, 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. [[User:Lumenos|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 war]]ring, 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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-( | ::::I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-( | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
::::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. | ::::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 [[English Wikipedia]]s rules to WikiIndex. However, it's important to remember that they are not the same thing. WikiIndex does not have a | ::::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 [[English Wikipedia]]s rules to WikiIndex. However, it's important to remember that they are not the same thing. WikiIndex does not have a {{W|Wikipedia:NPOV|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. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT) | ::::Speaking of Mark, I don't think he wants to be the ultimate arbiter of conflict or policy. However, he's been around here far longer than me, so I find him to be a good resource as to the original ethos of WikiIndex. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 20:34, 16 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
: 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. | : 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. | ||
: --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:32, 19 October 2009 (EDT) | : --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:32, 19 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::For people to rapidly find the best wiki to read, edit, or create, I think comparisons and evaluations can be as important as the noncontroversial information. Many | ::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 [[editor]]s invest a lot of time in a wiki only to loose it all when the wiki [[:Category:Dead|dies]]. Or they find the community or management, overbearing, and wish they had contributed to a different place instead. If the [[:Category:Wiki License|license]] allows it, the content could be copied to another wiki, but this may be a lot of work and [[:Category:Google|Google]] may penalize sites with duplicate content. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:41, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::To be fair, I haven't read all of the exchanges about RW and the other controversial wikis. I read up the point where I start to get a headache and then move on to something else. :-) I wouldn't worry that much about spamming Recent Changes. That's why there's a [[Special:Watchlist|watchlist]] to allow people to track only the pages they are interested in. | :::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 [[Special:Watchlist|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". [[Wikipedian]]s (like me) tend to act as though there are, but in doing so, we're really enforcing another site's rules where they don't apply. This is not to say that we shouldn't have policies on this, just that we don't now. So, in the case of RW, it is neither required nor prohibited to link to or quote secondary sources regarding the service outage. The question to be worked out by consensus is whether or not the cited coverage is beneficial or harmful to the listing. | :::Regarding sourcing, WikiIndex doesn't currently have policies regarding "reliable sources" or "[[Verifiable|verifiability]]". [[Wikipedian]]s (like me) tend to act as though there are, but in doing so, we're really enforcing another site's rules where they don't apply. This is not to say that we shouldn't have policies on this, just that we don't now. So, in the case of RW, it is neither required nor prohibited to link to or quote secondary sources regarding the service outage. The question to be worked out by consensus is whether or not the cited coverage is beneficial or harmful to the listing. | ||
:::I've stated before that I don't think that it's WikiIndex's job to be a consumer protection agency. I tend to concur with David Cary's content routing system concept. But I have <s>come to realize</s> had pointed out to me and come to agree that there's nothing in WikiIndex's charter that says that it can't provide commentary on the sites it lists. However, I fear that the listings for controversial wikis will get bogged down in a morass of perpetual reversions between highly subjective statements. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 14:16, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | :::I've stated before that I don't think that it's WikiIndex's job to be a consumer protection agency. I tend to concur with David Cary's content routing system concept. But I have <s>come to realize</s> had pointed out to me and come to agree that there's nothing in WikiIndex's charter that says that it can't provide commentary on the sites it lists. However, I fear that the listings for controversial wikis will get bogged down in a morass of perpetual reversions between highly subjective statements. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 14:16, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::''"Regarding sourcing, WikiIndex doesn't currently have policies regarding "reliable sources" or "verifiability". Wikipedians (like me) tend to act as though there are, but in doing so, we're really enforcing another site's rules where they don't apply."'' I suppose if you '''delete''' unsourced information, you would be going against the [[WikiIndex:Editing etiquette|etiquette policy]]. Dilley supports rewriting the work of others (as you would expect in a wiki). He also supports tagging, so long as this points to a constructive suggestion. I would think that would include a "citation needed" tag. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | ::::''"Regarding sourcing, WikiIndex doesn't currently have policies regarding "reliable sources" or "verifiability". Wikipedians (like me) tend to act as though there are, but in doing so, we're really enforcing another site's rules where they don't apply."'' I suppose if you '''delete''' unsourced information, you would be going against the [[WikiIndex:Editing etiquette|etiquette policy]]. Dilley supports rewriting the work of others (as you would expect in a wiki). He also supports tagging, so long as this points to a constructive suggestion. I would think that would include a "[[Template:Fact|citation needed]]" tag. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::There must be many exceptions to the "no delete policy". It seems to be a super "simplified" rule but it could use a link to more details about what ''should'' be deleted and how to deal with repeated deletions. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | ::::There must be many exceptions to the "no delete policy". It seems to be a super "simplified" rule but it could use a link to more details about what ''should'' be deleted and how to deal with repeated deletions. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::''"So, in the case of RW, it is neither required nor prohibited to link to or quote secondary sources regarding the service outage."'' It may be against the "etiquette policy" to delete sources or quotes, if they are added. I didn't delete any unsourced information; they deleted the sources or quotes, when they rewrote the quotes as paraphrases. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | ::::''"So, in the case of RW, it is neither required nor prohibited to link to or quote secondary sources regarding the service outage."'' It may be against the "etiquette policy" to delete sources or quotes, if they are added. I didn't delete any unsourced information; they deleted the sources or quotes, when they rewrote the quotes as paraphrases. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:04, 23 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
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 [[:Category:Religion|religion]] is that we do not have an official policy on religion. Our community of | : "Our official policy on [[:Category:Religion|religion]] is that we do not have an official policy on religion. Our community of [[editor]]s 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" | ||
: "Please keep in mind that the standards below are only an approximation of the site's working practices." | : "Please keep in mind that the standards below are only an approximation of the site's working practices." | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
What is the process for creating policy? | What is the process for creating policy? | ||
*Is there a [[god king]] who can create it unilaterally? | *Is there a [[god king]] who can create it unilaterally? | ||
*Are we supposed to [[BeBold]] and create whatever policy we want, and see if anyone | *Are we supposed to [[BeBold]] and create whatever policy we want, and see if anyone [[revert]]s it? | ||
*Are we supposed to propose it at the [[WikiIndex:Community portal|community portal]]? | *Are we supposed to propose it at the [[WikiIndex:Community portal|community portal]]? | ||
*Do we look to what [[sysop]]s are able to actually do and get away with, and write policies describing that? | *Do we look to what [[sysop]]s are able to actually do and get away with, and write policies describing that? | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
:I assent to this questions and like to add, that I see it as an attempt to build policy building policy more or less regardless how it was or was lacking in the past. Let's make a fresh start here! [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 20:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | :I assent to this questions and like to add, that I see it as an attempt to build policy building policy more or less regardless how it was or was lacking in the past. Let's make a fresh start here! [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 20:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
::The experience of [[English Wikipedia]] shows that stuff proposed at the | ::The experience of [[English Wikipedia]] shows that stuff proposed at the {{W|Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump}} very rarely gets accepted as policy. It's hard to build [[consensus]] in that way. It seems more effective and efficient to just use the [[BRD cycle]]. The [[god king]] method is even better in some ways, because it leaves no question about whether a proposal has been accepted or rejected by a large enough margin of [[user]]s. It all comes down to one guy saying "aye" or "no" and then that decides the matter conclusively, until someone changes his mind. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 20:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
::: This Wiki does not even have a Village Pump. To compare it with Wikipedia seams to be of little or no use at all. We also got not [[God king]] (thanks for creating this page finally). We got no structure at all. Therefore we got to start rock bottom. It is amazing how much one or many can neglect to do within 8 years. I think the negligence is all more or less build on the clouded "envisioning" of [[Mark]] being a [[leader]] of this wiki. But actually we got only an domain [[owner]] and no leader at all. Therefore, attempts to clarify policy can easily blow this wiki. [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 20:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | ::: This Wiki does not even have a Village Pump. To compare it with Wikipedia seams to be of little or no use at all. We also got not [[God king]] (thanks for creating this page finally). We got no structure at all. Therefore we got to start rock bottom. It is amazing how much one or many can neglect to do within 8 years. I think the negligence is all more or less build on the clouded "envisioning" of [[Mark]] being a [[leader]] of this wiki. But actually we got only an domain [[owner]] and no leader at all. Therefore, attempts to clarify policy can easily blow this wiki. [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 20:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC) | ||