1,136
edits
WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines: Difference between revisions
WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 15:02, 2 September 2009
, 2 September 2009→How sympathetic or critical? (Who decides?): quoted MarkDilly on criticism, and did so in a professional manner
(→How sympathetic or critical? (Who decides?): quoted MarkDilly on criticism, and did so in a professional manner) |
|||
| Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
==How sympathetic or critical? (Who decides?)== | ==How sympathetic or critical? (Who decides?)== | ||
We have the following options: | |||
*Allow only the sympathetic view in articles. (Criticism can be done on the talk pages anyway, unless we limit this also.) | |||
*Attempt a [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov Neutral Point of View] for articles. | |||
*Attempt a [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov Neutral Point of View] for articles but allow a section for "critical" viewpoints. | |||
*Have separate articles for sympathetic and critical viewpoints. Anyone would be able to create the critical article for any wiki, if they have a grievance or negative review, but this would be limited (at least) by the policies on: | |||
**notability | |||
**verifiability | |||
**"constructiveness" (the criticism must be written in a way that it is suggesting what they could do better) | |||
**not "harmful" in some sense | |||
Are the articles on wikis to be sympathetic, critical, both, or "neutral"? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | Are the articles on wikis to be sympathetic, critical, both, or "neutral"? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | ||
| Line 153: | Line 163: | ||
::This sort of policy sounds like it might work here, if y'all agree. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | ::This sort of policy sounds like it might work here, if y'all agree. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | ||
:::It's cumbersome at [[Wikinfo]] but it's better than not allowing criticism at all.[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:34, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | :::It's cumbersome at [[Wikinfo]] but it's better than not allowing criticism at all.[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:34, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::(Proxima is a sysop here.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::I propose that critical articles may contain rebuttals to criticisms. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:33, 31 August 2009 (EDT)) | :::I propose that critical articles may contain rebuttals to criticisms. ([[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 13:33, 31 August 2009 (EDT)) | ||
:::MarkDilly seems to be the most (or only) active bureaucrat, he wrote, "I can understand that folks from Conservapedia don't want the page on [[WikiIndex]] about their wiki to be overrun by criticism - and I can also understand that people want to talk about problems they have with the wiki. Why not take it to a page [[Constructive Criticism of Conservapedia]] and simply make one line / link on the [[Conservapedia]] page pointing to this. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]" | |||
::::I don't think the term "Constructive" is necessary, but I think we should define "constructive" according to our policies on notability, verifiability, and/or something to do with preventing harm. It might not be a bad way of suggesting it however. I'd support either. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::I appreciate the restraint and professionalism that everyone is displaying here. I'd just like everyone to know that I'm not gonna post some witty statement like "BWAM", because that is not the purpose of this policy page. :-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::::Uhh Lumenos he didn't say that the main article would link to the critical one. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
::::::Doh! You shut up that is what he meant! [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
I think that criticism should not be allowed at all, because it just provokes destructive debates; imagine if Proxima's complaints about her privacy had been left on a page dedicated to it — there would have been a bloodbath. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 12:21, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | I think that criticism should not be allowed at all, because it just provokes destructive debates; imagine if Proxima's complaints about her privacy had been left on a page dedicated to it — there would have been a bloodbath. [[User:Phantom Hoover|Phantom Hoover]] 12:21, 30 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:I think we should use various policies to mitigate both the criticism and the self-indulgence. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | :I think we should use various policies to mitigate both the criticism and the self-indulgence. For example, [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov Wikipedias Neutral Point of View] for main articles, if there are not special critical articles. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Otherwise, let the main article be "sympathetic" and have separate critical articles (or sections), but both of these would be limited by notability and verifiability policy. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
DavidCary | DavidCary (sysop) suggestion for one article on (24 November 2008) is [[Talk:RationalWiki#Wikiindex|here]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
==Claims and evidence== | ==Claims and evidence== | ||