WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines: Difference between revisions

WikiIndex:Policies and Guidelines (view source)

Revision as of 10:17, 4 September 2009

No change in size , 4 September 2009

no edit summary

Lumenos

1,136

edits

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 :If it is a question of something our readers need to know, of course. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
 :It wouldn't help our users, necessarily, it may help whomever the evil wiki is being evil ''to'', by giving the wiki an incentive to change their evil ways. But you know, there is evil and then there is evil... oh yeah, then there is evil. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 16:16, 3 September 2009 (EDT)
+==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 (with the following limitations).
+But, critical or not, '''all articles shall be restrained''' by the policies on:
+*Notability
+*Verifiability
+*Constructiveness (so any criticism must be written in a way that it is suggesting what they could do better) (per  [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|bureaucrat MarkDilly's suggestion]])
+*(See [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Block Wikipedia's block policy] per [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy#draft_blocking_policy_proposal|sysop DavidCary's proposal]].)
+Are the articles on wikis to be sympathetic, critical, both, or "neutral"? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
+:[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia supposedly uses the "neutral" approach].
+::This offers much opportunity for censorship and edit waring. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
+:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Main_Page Wikinfo] deals with edit wars by making the [http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Wikinfo:Sympathetic_point_of_view main article sympathetic], and posting a link at the top of that article, to an article devoted solely to criticism.
+::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)
+:::(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))
+:::'''MarkDilly seems to be the most (or only) active bureaucrat, [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|in one example he suggested a criticism page]] that was named like "Constructive Criticism of..." then he wrote the wiki's name, but I don't want to post that here because I'm trying to speak in the general sense although I should add that he did mention the wiki so this is not necessarily a policy he is suggesting for all wikis.''' [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:22, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
+::::I second this uuh suggestion. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:05, 3 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 &mdash; 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. 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 (sysop) suggestion for one article on (24 November 2008) is [[Talk:RationalWiki#Wikiindex|here]]. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:02, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
 ==Biographical info==
@@ Line 192: / Line 226: @@
 ::If it is not easy to find, do something to make it easier to find the info.
 :::Note to readers: You can use "CTRL + F" on your keyboard to find words or phrases on a web page.
-==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 (with the following limitations).
-But, critical or not, '''all articles shall be restrained''' by the policies on:
-*Notability
-*Verifiability
-*Constructiveness (so any criticism must be written in a way that it is suggesting what they could do better) (per  [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|bureaucrat MarkDilly's suggestion]])
-*(See [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Block Wikipedia's block policy] per [[WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy#draft_blocking_policy_proposal|sysop DavidCary's proposal]].)
-Are the articles on wikis to be sympathetic, critical, both, or "neutral"? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
-:[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia supposedly uses the "neutral" approach].
-::This offers much opportunity for censorship and edit waring. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
-:[http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Main_Page Wikinfo] deals with edit wars by making the [http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Wikinfo:Sympathetic_point_of_view main article sympathetic], and posting a link at the top of that article, to an article devoted solely to criticism.
-::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)
-:::(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))
-:::'''MarkDilly seems to be the most (or only) active bureaucrat, [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|in one example he suggested a criticism page]] that was named like "Constructive Criticism of..." then he wrote the wiki's name, but I don't want to post that here because I'm trying to speak in the general sense although I should add that he did mention the wiki so this is not necessarily a policy he is suggesting for all wikis.''' [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 11:22, 2 September 2009 (EDT)
-::::I second this uuh suggestion. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 08:05, 3 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 &mdash; 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. 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 (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==