Bureaucrats, checkuser, interwiki, staff, Administrators
9,133
edits
WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines: Difference between revisions
WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines (view source)
Revision as of 05:09, 4 September 2009
, 4 September 2009maybe stomped after an edit conflict - will try to fix
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) (maybe stomped after an edit conflict - will try to fix) |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
===Comments must abide a neutral point of view=== | ===Comments must abide a neutral point of view=== | ||
'''ANNOUNCEMENT: This is a proposal to adopt | '''ANNOUNCEMENT: This is a proposal to adopt '''neutrality'' for this page. Comments that do not seem to follow this policy shall be deleted or relocated (to a talk page). Secondly, it is proposed that we do not post about any ''specific'' conflict that has been going on, but instead ''speak only in terms of generalizations''. And that we move any of those comments that are already here, to a talk page (eventually), or delete them.''' Any such comments that are relevant to policy should be ''paraphrased into generalizations'', which will remain where the comment was, while the comment is relocated to a talk page or deleted. | ||
For example, someone posts this comment here, "I've been harassed by people from AboWiki. We should not allow this." This would be removed and a request would be placed on the commenter's talk page to propose that a specifically defined offense, be handled in a specific manner. So the proper way to propose a policy in this case would say: "I propose we do not allow editors to continue posting unanswered replies to a user's talk page. That we enforce this policy by first warning, then blocking the editor.<your signature>" | For example, someone posts this comment here, "I've been harassed by people from AboWiki. We should not allow this." This would be removed and a request would be placed on the commenter's talk page to propose that a specifically defined offense, be handled in a specific manner. So the proper way to propose a policy in this case would say: "I propose we do not allow editors to continue posting unanswered replies to a user's talk page. That we enforce this policy by first warning, then blocking the editor.<your signature>" | ||
| Line 20: | Line 18: | ||
Both this page and its talk page are '''for policy discussion''' only. If you have a specific grievance, you would like to resolve, follow the instructions on this guide, or see if [[:Category:Guidelines]] has more clues, on what you can do to have your issue resolved. | Both this page and its talk page are '''for policy discussion''' only. If you have a specific grievance, you would like to resolve, follow the instructions on this guide, or see if [[:Category:Guidelines]] has more clues, on what you can do to have your issue resolved. | ||
: '''''I disagree strongly with Neutral Point of View for this wiki. I understand that it is for this page only - and I am not sure that is still a good thing. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]''''' | |||
::The question is, what would be a better thing? I've listed some other options [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines#How_sympathetic_or_critical.3F_.28Who_decides.3F.29|here]]. I don't see how we would have a sympathetic POV for this page, unless maybe it is "sympathetic" to "WikiIndex" but I'm not sure what that would mean. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
: '''''I disagree strongly with Neutral Point of View for this wiki. I understand that it is for this page only - and I am not sure that is still a good thing. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]''''' | |||
:: | |||
::What potential problems do you see with this "NPOV" here? (It is not Wikipedia's NPOV, BTW) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ::What potential problems do you see with this "NPOV" here? (It is not Wikipedia's NPOV, BTW) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:: Those are fair comments - I just don't know what NPOV would do for us here. My experience with wiki, is that if I say something that is outrageous and inflammatory - someone comes in and fixes it - keeps the meaning but ''neutralizes'' it. So I do agree with not creating an atmosphere of forest fire mentality or edit waring or flaming. ~~ [[MarkDilley]] | |||
::We are allowing "commenting" on this page, but I don't want to open up debates about specific conflicts. This is my reason for the "NPOV". [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ::We are allowing "commenting" on this page, but I don't want to open up debates about specific conflicts. This is my reason for the "NPOV". [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::: I think that commenting on any page is ''allowed'' - that is how wiki has worked for many places before Wikipedia. ~~ [[MarkDilley]] | |||
(Here is [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view] if this may give us any ideas.) -- [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | |||
::Another idea would be to use the talk page for "comments" but the whole thing is pretty much my "POV", so I don't want to exclude others. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ::Another idea would be to use the talk page for "comments" but the whole thing is pretty much my "POV", so I don't want to exclude others. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::: ''Glad that you are interested in inclusion. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]'' | |||
:::I feel strongly that we should be signing our proposals and claims here and I thank you for doing so. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | :::I feel strongly that we should be signing our proposals and claims here and I thank you for doing so. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:51, 4 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::: Ditto ~~ [[MarkDilley]] | |||
== Temporary purpose of this article == | == Temporary purpose of this article == | ||