WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines

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)

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)

Notability

Notability of critical reviews

Critical reviews are often controversial. How shall we decide which criticisms are notable enough for inclusion in an article?