331
edits
Template talk:RationalWiki: Difference between revisions
→Wiki policy
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
:::::::You've set forth a vision of what WikiIndex should and shouldn't be, but I don't see that being proposed as policy either. [[WikiIndex:About]] contains no such restrictions as what you set forth above. Also, theoretically, instead of deleting the content a second time, you were supposed to do a strikethrough, but I don't see people do that anywhere else in the wikisphere, and I've never seen that policy followed on this wiki either. See [[WikiIndex:Editing etiquette]]. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 14:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | :::::::You've set forth a vision of what WikiIndex should and shouldn't be, but I don't see that being proposed as policy either. [[WikiIndex:About]] contains no such restrictions as what you set forth above. Also, theoretically, instead of deleting the content a second time, you were supposed to do a strikethrough, but I don't see people do that anywhere else in the wikisphere, and I've never seen that policy followed on this wiki either. See [[WikiIndex:Editing etiquette]]. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 14:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
==Wiki policy== | |||
Above, Leucosticte is correct about lack of clear policy and practice. WikiIndex was started to be something simple, it appears, and who needs a pile of policy and practice if everyone knows what is to be done? This is a classic wiki problem. When policy and practice are not set at the beginning, it grows like topsy, as actual practice, and it can be unpredictable, and then much time is wasted, users leave in disgust, etc., etc. It's happened to many wikis without strong leadership, and, my opinion, this happened with Wikipedia, though it's not so obvious, because they have *tons* of policies and guidelines that aren't worth the paper they are not written on, except they can be used to attack the weak. (And then it also works in certain ways, but it's *highly inefficient,* so it bleeds users who burn out.) | |||
However, I'm assuming that WikiIndex is intended to be what the name says, and what is shown to unregistered users. What is being shown is that there are users who want it to be a less obvious version of [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]], where anything goes. Or does it? Right now, there is material on WikiIndex that creates a legal hazard for the owner. Does he realize this? Does he care? Does he mind the real names and birth dates of minors (one is 13 that I just saw) being on WikiIndex? Such information is enshrined in edit history, even if blanked, and the same for the real name of a user where the page was deleted and yet the name is blatant in deletion history. | |||
The founder noticed revert warring by a user creating this mess and said "enough," but then let the user make one more edit. (Which was okay, but was also the last edit the user made.) What I see is not uncommon in on-line fora. A founder becomes disinterested, but maintains weak control, and occasionally intervenes while being clueless, wreaking havoc with other functionaries. My training in project creation emphasizes the importance of *turning it over.* Otherwise it is basically ego, individual identity. Nothing wrong with that, per se, except it is obviously limited. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 15:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC) | |||