WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content: Difference between revisions

WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content (edit)

Revision as of 22:38, 5 January 2015

1 byte removed , 5 January 2015

→‎Controversial sites

Abd

331

edits

@@ Line 74: / Line 74: @@
 The WP policy is reasonably acceptable because it is not to be implemented visibly, on-wiki. There is no public discussion. The policy is quite clear, and users who have violated the policy by accusing others of the "offense" have been blocked. (And then they complain, on Wikipediocracy, that Wikipedia "tolerates pedophiles." Total mess.)
-:Leucosticte got himself blocked on meta for attempting to discuss global child protection policy. The blocking admin was actually protecting him, but L. came here and immediately created a bio for that admin. [[MZMcBride]]. I tagged that for deletion, Leucosticte removed the tag. Had Leucosticte been allowed to continue what he was doing on meta, a global ban would have been likely, I know that community well. What Wikipedia has learned is that even discussing the topic is highly disruptive. So our own policy should avoid setting up conditions for such discussion. Nobody discusses the phone directory, whether a porn shop should be allowed to have a listing. Or a pedophile, for that matter. If they have a phone, a listing. I'm suggesting that if they have a wiki, a listing. The listing may be minimal, and, again, the whole concept that WikiIndex exists to "discuss the wikisphere" is a problem. That requires an active community, supervised or facilitated, and I don't see that this is regular here, vide Leucosticte making that non-deletion decision. Because that page was relatively harmless, I didn't make a fuss about it.
+Leucosticte got himself blocked on meta for attempting to discuss global child protection policy. The blocking admin was actually protecting him, but L. came here and immediately created a bio for that admin. [[MZMcBride]]. I tagged that for deletion, Leucosticte removed the tag. Had Leucosticte been allowed to continue what he was doing on meta, a global ban would have been likely, I know that community well. What Wikipedia has learned is that even discussing the topic is highly disruptive. So our own policy should avoid setting up conditions for such discussion. Nobody discusses the phone directory, whether a porn shop should be allowed to have a listing. Or a pedophile, for that matter. If they have a phone, a listing. I'm suggesting that if they have a wiki, a listing. The listing may be minimal, and, again, the whole concept that WikiIndex exists to "discuss the wikisphere" is a problem. That requires an active community, supervised or facilitated, and I don't see that this is regular here, vide Leucosticte making that non-deletion decision. Because that page was relatively harmless, I didn't make a fuss about it.
-:When disruptive users are allowed to disrupt, other users leave. If the wiki management doesn't care, well, it doesn't care about the future of the wiki. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
+When disruptive users are allowed to disrupt, other users leave. If the wiki management doesn't care, well, it doesn't care about the future of the wiki. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 22:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)