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 21:33, 21 January 2023
, 21 January 2023Fix redirects
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "Wiki License" to "Wiki license") |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (Fix redirects) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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 [[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) | :[[: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 (en)]] 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/[[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}} and {{Mw|Extension: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/[[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}} and {{Mw|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) | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
:::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 (en)]]. 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) | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
::::I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-( | ::::I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-( | ||
::::Yes, I consider whether or not a site is up or down to be basic information. In the avalanche of messages pertaining to conflicts at [[RationalWiki]], I hadn't even noticed that was one of the points of contention. By basic information, I mean facts which can be verified empirically (the link, the underlying [[:Category:Wiki engine|wiki engine]], the statement of purpose, number of pages, etc.). I differentiate this from people's subjective experiences with the wiki. | ::::Yes, I consider whether or not a site is up or down to be basic information. In the avalanche of messages pertaining to conflicts at [[RationalWiki (en)]], I hadn't even noticed that was one of the points of contention. By basic information, I mean facts which can be verified empirically (the link, the underlying [[:Category:Wiki engine|wiki engine]], the statement of purpose, number of pages, etc.). I differentiate this from people's subjective experiences with the wiki. | ||
::::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. | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
::::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) | ||
:::::''"I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-("'' You've been doing so much good editing here lately, I wouldn't want to deter you. I don't know exactly what you are referring to. Some things I regret writing. I don't understand why you would find something tiring if you don't have to read it. I can understand if you want WikiIndex to seem inviting to other editors. Some conflicts I've been involved in, seem necessary, others do not (in hindsight). Having no auto-filter for [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes]] makes it impossible to direct this information to only those who choose to read it. In the future, I will probably post such replies at [[Lumeniki]] and only post a link to it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | :::::''"I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-("'' You've been doing so much good editing here lately, I wouldn't want to deter you. I don't know exactly what you are referring to. Some things I regret writing. I don't understand why you would find something tiring if you don't have to read it. I can understand if you want WikiIndex to seem inviting to other editors. Some conflicts I've been involved in, seem necessary, others do not (in hindsight). Having no auto-filter for [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent changes]] makes it impossible to direct this information to only those who choose to read it. In the future, I will probably post such replies at [[Lumeniki]] and only post a link to it. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::''"In the avalanche of messages pertaining to conflicts at [[RationalWiki]], I hadn't even noticed that was one of the points of contention."'' The fact there was a service outage, was not a point of contention. Some points of contention were that I quoted sources and stated "facts", such as who said what. Some RW [[bureaucrat]]s preferred that WikiIndex <s>make unsourced claims or</s> assume that these are reliable/infallible sources and paraphrase these (as if these claims are endorsed by WikiIndex). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | :::::''"In the avalanche of messages pertaining to conflicts at [[RationalWiki (en)]], I hadn't even noticed that was one of the points of contention."'' The fact there was a service outage, was not a point of contention. Some points of contention were that I quoted sources and stated "facts", such as who said what. Some RW [[bureaucrat]]s preferred that WikiIndex <s>make unsourced claims or</s> assume that these are reliable/infallible sources and paraphrase these (as if these claims are endorsed by WikiIndex). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::''"By basic information, I mean facts which can be verified empirically (the link, the underlying [[:Category:Wiki engine|wiki engine]], the statement of purpose, number of pages, etc.)."'' The statement of purpose can be completely misleading. It ''is'' a fact that it is the statement of purpose, but it is also an "empirical" fact that someone else claims there are ulterior motives. There are all types of ways to subvert a democratic process and make it look like a wiki is based on some sort of consensus. For example, a wiki may claim it is based on a conservative viewpoint, but the majority of conservatives may disagree with many key claims of the wiki or the management in general. If these conservatives bother trying to edit the wiki they may be reprimanded, [[Banning|banned]], etc. If WikiIndex simply parrots the claims of a wiki's owner, we contribute to this deception. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | :::::''"By basic information, I mean facts which can be verified empirically (the link, the underlying [[:Category:Wiki engine|wiki engine]], the statement of purpose, number of pages, etc.)."'' The statement of purpose can be completely misleading. It ''is'' a fact that it is the statement of purpose, but it is also an "empirical" fact that someone else claims there are ulterior motives. There are all types of ways to subvert a democratic process and make it look like a wiki is based on some sort of consensus. For example, a wiki may claim it is based on a conservative viewpoint, but the majority of conservatives may disagree with many key claims of the wiki or the management in general. If these conservatives bother trying to edit the wiki they may be reprimanded, [[Banning|banned]], etc. If WikiIndex simply parrots the claims of a wiki's owner, we contribute to this deception. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::::Basic information may include things like funding, biographical information about [[owner]]ship, prior endeavors of the wiki's rulers, copyright information, [[:Category:Wiki Backups|backup service]], etc. It is difficult to predict what some may find offensive, intrusive, or notable. Some information may seem unimportant until a wiki drastically changes. Wiki's become [[:Category:Dead|unavailable]], they move, they may completely change an important "policy" or "custom"... [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | :::::Basic information may include things like funding, biographical information about [[owner]]ship, prior endeavors of the wiki's rulers, copyright information, [[:Category:Wiki Backups|backup service]], etc. It is difficult to predict what some may find offensive, intrusive, or notable. Some information may seem unimportant until a wiki drastically changes. Wiki's become [[:Category:Dead|unavailable]], they move, they may completely change an important "policy" or "custom"... [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
==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 (en)]] 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 [[editor]]s includes followers of various religions, as well as many atheists. Please bear this in mind when editing." | : "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" | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
==When [[User:Huw Powell|Huw]] deleted 90% of the page== | ==When [[User:Huw Powell|Huw]] deleted 90% of the page== | ||
[https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72573&oldid=72554 Here is the edit] and [[User:Huw Powell|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". | [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72573&oldid=72554 Here is the edit] and [[User:Huw Powell|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 war]]ing, and premature blocking. You might notice how three [[RationalWiki]] [[bureaucrat]]s; you, [[User: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 page]]s 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 [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=71068&oldid=71030] [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=70634&oldid=70618] [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70039&oldid=70035] [https://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 war]]ing, and premature blocking. You might notice how three [[RationalWiki (en)]] [[bureaucrat]]s; you, [[User: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 page]]s 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 [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=71068&oldid=71030] [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=70634&oldid=70618] [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70039&oldid=70035] [https://WikiIndex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70631&oldid=70606].) | ||
::Hi Lumenos. You forgot to sign your post. Yeah, I ripped out a bunch of tripe. Oh well, may I way have been wrong. But your axe-grinding is getting really tiresome. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 02:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ::Hi Lumenos. You forgot to sign your post. Yeah, I ripped out a bunch of tripe. Oh well, may I way have been wrong. But your axe-grinding is getting really tiresome. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 02:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Thanks for indicating this was my post. Now prepare to be utterly humiliated when your fewlishness is exposed before all. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | :::Thanks for indicating this was my post. Now prepare to be utterly humiliated when your fewlishness is exposed before all. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||