1,316
edits
(→Biographical info: How does "pretend that evil wiki don't exist" help our users?) |
|||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
:As for the time being, I would suggest you go with [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Wikipedia's guidelines on biographical information] and also include their standard of notability as explained in that link. For example, most wiki administrators would not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline therefore you would delete information about them. When editors complain or violate it, someone might direct them [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#Biographical_info]] and maybe they will present their case and we could establish some general guidelines that would work better for WikiIndex being that it generally has a more specialized notability criteria. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:04, 29 August 2009 (EDT) | :As for the time being, I would suggest you go with [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Wikipedia's guidelines on biographical information] and also include their standard of notability as explained in that link. For example, most wiki administrators would not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline therefore you would delete information about them. When editors complain or violate it, someone might direct them [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#Biographical_info]] and maybe they will present their case and we could establish some general guidelines that would work better for WikiIndex being that it generally has a more specialized notability criteria. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:04, 29 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Secondly, perhaps some standard could be established regarding wikis being excluded if they do not meet basic legal requirements for privacy, or whatever standards may be agreed upon by a significant majority of editors. If there gets to be edit warring over the policy pages so this "consensus" is not possible, the owners would have to decide, I suppose. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:04, 29 August 2009 (EDT) | :Secondly, perhaps some standard could be established regarding wikis being excluded if they do not meet basic legal requirements for privacy, or whatever standards may be agreed upon by a significant majority of editors. If there gets to be edit warring over the policy pages so this "consensus" is not possible, the owners would have to decide, I suppose. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 03:04, 29 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
:: While it should not surprise me that people misunderstand me when I say nothing, I find I am occasionally surprised at how people misunderstand what I have written. | |||
:: Yes, "private" information is one of the seven things to which that sentence refers. | |||
:: No, I was not specifically thinking about "private" information, when I wrote that. It was intended to be a quick summary of the line between "the seven actions which are blockable offenses" vs. "actions which, while rude and annoying, are not quite bad enough to be blockable". | |||
:: [[Category talk:Wiki Edit Mode | As I have said before]], in my opinion, every publicly-available wiki should be listed on this WikiIndex, no matter how evil. The only exception is when that wiki's owner or that wiki's community chooses to [[WikiIndex:OptOut]]. (Although I don't understand why one would put a wiki on the public web, but not want anyone to know about it, I will respect such wishes). | |||
:: [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#some_wiki_seem_to_be_blocked | Others]] seem to agree with my "completist" preferences. | |||
:: You may be able to convince me that we shouldn't display offensive wiki logos, and perhaps you may convince me that we shouldn't make an easily-clickable active link to an illegal site. But to completely censor every mention of a wiki? How does "pretend that evil wiki don't exist" help our users? | |||
:: --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:35, 2 September 2009 (EDT) |