User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies: Difference between revisions

User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies (edit)

Revision as of 00:35, 23 June 2010

4,549 bytes added , 23 June 2010

→‎Criticism of wikis: merged comments by Felix and DavidCarry, added brief commentary

Lumenos

1,136

edits

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 Criticism is controversial. The majority of the WikiIndex administration doesn't seem to like having to mediate and deal with conflicts. Therefore I am suggesting that wiki articles will probably have to be in a sympathetic viewpoint. A possible alternative is to streamline or "outsource", the process of dispute resolution. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
-DavidCary (sysop) writing on this subject can be found [[Talk:RationalWiki/Archive1#Wikiindex|here]] (used to be [[Talk:RationalWiki#Wikiindex|here]]). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:02, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
+====Bureaucrats====
+MarkDilly seems to be the only active [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=500&group=bureaucrat bureaucrat], this is a quote from [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|this location]]: ''"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]]''" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
+====Sysops====
+[http://www.wikiindex.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=500&group=sysop This link] shows you the current sysops.
+===== DavidCary =====
+DavidCary (sysop) writing on this subject can be found [[Talk:RationalWiki/Archive1#Wikiindex|here]]. I am reproducing this quote below. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
+----
+----
+I have been asked[http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADavidCary&diff=59927&oldid=59646] how much criticism is appropriate in the this RationalWiki article.
+May I remind everyone that you are now reading a page on the [[WikiIndex]]?
+I believe that everything is on-topic somewhere[http://www.communitywiki.org/en/OnAndOffTopic].
+However, that does not mean that everything is on-topic here at WikiIndex.
+The WikiIndex page "The Conservapedia RationalWiki war" has been deleted because as far as I can tell
+(a) a better place for that content is at http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Essay:The_Conservapedia_RationalWiki_War , and
+(b) that war is not a wiki, and therefore off-topic for WikiIndex.
+Is [[RationalWikiWiki]] an entire wiki dedicated to criticizing RationalWiki? If so, I fail to see why that criticism needs to be re-iterated here at WikiIndex.
+And so I fail to understand why this WikiIndex page needs a criticism section.
+Nevertheless, mentioning closely-related wiki is helpful for our target audience, and so I find mentioning RationalWikiWiki entirely appropriate in this article.
+Is it obvious to everyone that I am strongly biased?
+--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 09:23, 24 November 2008 (EST)
+More discussion at [[Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki#Conservapedia, RationalWiki etc]]. --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 09:42, 24 November 2008 (EST)
+----
+----
+=====Felix=====
+''"You just said it yourself: "they would be quite happy with no criticism and they don't know yet whether they should have to do any of this work". Can you guess why? Because they ''should not'' have to. [...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:47, 25 September 2009 (EDT)"'' [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=71987&oldid=71985]
+The following quote is much longer but this is the only part that I perceive to be somewhat accurate. (Click the link to see it "in context") [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) ''"It's not that you posted criticism, or that your criticism was deleted. It's that you kept posting it right back many times, against the obvious wishes of a peer[...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)"'' [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=72019&oldid=72009]
+:It was more like ''numerous'' "peers", nearly all of whom are bureaucrats at [[RationalWiki]] (Nx is not a "bureaucrat" currently but Phantom Hoover claims Nx is able to directly edit the database [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANx&diff=605939&oldid=604243]). The "other peers" were anonymous edits. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
+''"You've asked elsewhere about my plans. Honestly, I'm one step away from locking the RationalWiki article for a looong time and stripping it down to the boilerplate. I'll even link to your criticism if you care to post it elsewhere[...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)"'' [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=72019&oldid=72009]
+''"Lumenos, all those conflicts you're referring to are over this one article. Which is just one among thousands here. Do you think it's so special to me? It's not. You made it so, by fighting other editors over it, and I'm fed up with that. What I ''really'' want is to delete it permanently, and if that wasn't so blatantly against the goals of WikiIndex, I would.[...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:50, 1 October 2009 (EDT)"'' [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=72124&oldid=72122]
+----
 ----
-The following are some administrative comments that seemed to suggest that wiki criticism may have been allowable:
+Please understand, the reason I am posting these quotes is not to reignite an old conflict, but rather to show the difficulties involved with creating articles here, that are not in the "sympathetic" point of view. The Lumeniki article is another example. Two editors deleted large amounts of it on the grounds that it is too long for a "vanity wiki" or that the style was inappropriate. MarkDilley responded with this comment ''"I wouldn't say it was the norm, but it doesn't strike me as being 'wrong'."''[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ALumeniki&diff=70688&oldid=70628] [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
-MarkDilly seems to be the only active bureaucrat, this would appear to be a quote from [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|this location]]: ''"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]]''" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:02, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
+=====Proxima (no longer a sysop)=====
 Are the articles on wikis to be sympathetic, critical, both, or "neutral"? ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]]
@@ Line 57: / Line 103: @@
 :[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 no longer an administrator. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:40, 22 June 2010 (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 no longer sysop. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT)
 ===Disputed information===