Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (tidy header) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Edit War wikilink - no text changed) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
== Proposal: Articles should preferably stick to facts == | == Proposal: Articles should preferably stick to facts == | ||
I was initially under the impression that [[WikiIndex]] had such a policy, not unlike Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. However, somewhere along the line, Mark Dilley pointed out to me that the mission of WikiIndex does not preclude providing personal commentary on the wikis listed here. I'd link to this comment, but I no longer remember where this took place. Anyway, I think that this choice leaves us open to the edit wars which took place recently, which is why I'm not keen on it. Sticking to the facts is more akin to my way of thinking. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 04:52, 4 October 2009 (EDT) | I was initially under the impression that [[WikiIndex]] had such a policy, not unlike Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. However, somewhere along the line, Mark Dilley pointed out to me that the mission of WikiIndex does not preclude providing personal commentary on the wikis listed here. I'd link to this comment, but I no longer remember where this took place. Anyway, I think that this choice leaves us open to the [[Edit War|edit wars]] which took place recently, which is why I'm not keen on it. Sticking to the facts is more akin to my way of thinking. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 04:52, 4 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:[[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia's]] policy on [[NPOV]] is connected to its policy on verifiablity. This usually requires third-party published sources. That would eliminate most of this wiki. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | :[[:Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia's]] policy on [[NPOV]] is connected to its policy on verifiablity. This usually requires third-party published sources. That would eliminate most of this wiki. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:I sorta agree with you, but it is easier said than done. I tried to post some "facts" in the [[RationalWiki]] article. My way of doing that is to quote sources and say who claimed what. Some problems with this are that it looks tacky, often sounds suspicious, and can be very repetitive when everything is something someone claims. More on that [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/WikiIndex_(unwritten)_policies#Verifiability here]. (Another scuffle broke out [[Talk:RationalWiki# | :I sorta agree with you, but it is easier said than done. I tried to post some "facts" in the [[RationalWiki]] article. My way of doing that is to quote sources and say who claimed what. Some problems with this are that it looks tacky, often sounds suspicious, and can be very repetitive when everything is something someone claims. More on that [http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/WikiIndex_(unwritten)_policies#Verifiability here]. (Another scuffle broke out [[Talk:RationalWiki#Edit wars|over an ambiguous statement]]. This is where "assume good faith" comes in.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:(BTW, I've been trying to see if we can't get some extensions installed for footnotes/citations, to make these more tidy, but this wouldn't really solve the above issues. If I remember correctly we would need [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php Cite] and [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions ParserFunctions].) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | :(BTW, I've been trying to see if we can't get some extensions installed for footnotes/citations, to make these more tidy, but this wouldn't really solve the above issues. If I remember correctly we would need [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php Cite] and [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ParserFunctions ParserFunctions].) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:Dilley does seem to agree with "neutralizing" any comments that are added, by rewriting them. This would be better than altering quotes, in my view (another small "conflict" recently). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | :Dilley does seem to agree with "neutralizing" any comments that are added, by rewriting them. This would be better than altering quotes, in my view (another small "conflict" recently). [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::However, I wish I could find Mark Dilley's commentary on this. As I understand it, the founders of WikiIndex are not inclined to be as restrictive as I am. So, this proposal is probably doomed. :-) --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 17:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ::However, I wish I could find Mark Dilley's commentary on this. As I understand it, the founders of WikiIndex are not inclined to be as restrictive as I am. So, this proposal is probably doomed. :-) --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 17:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Oh you mean the invigorating wikidrama? ;-) That is much clearer; thank you. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | :::Oh you mean the invigorating wikidrama? ;-) That is much clearer; thank you. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::If we simply take what is on a wiki's mainpage, I would call this a sympathetic point of view rather than a neutral one. That basically lets the administration of that wiki decide what will be in WikiIndex. I think you may indeed get less edit warring over articles, that way. People might not agree with it but they are less likely to care since they are not protecting "their" wiki from (misleading) criticism. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | :::If we simply take what is on a wiki's mainpage, I would call this a sympathetic point of view rather than a neutral one. That basically lets the administration of that wiki decide what will be in WikiIndex. I think you may indeed get less [[Edit War|edit warring]] over articles, that way. People might not agree with it but they are less likely to care since they are not protecting "their" wiki from (misleading) criticism. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::But when you say "basic" information, that is less clear. In the aforementioned conflict, the disputed content was concerning the coverage of the recent service loss of RationalWiki. I would consider that basic information. Perhaps you would too. So everything "controversial" can't be eliminated. Granted this stuff ''shouldn't'' be that controversial but I think it is just the surface of an underlying conflict that is only between one or more admins, and a few editors. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | :::But when you say "basic" information, that is less clear. In the aforementioned conflict, the disputed content was concerning the coverage of the recent service loss of RationalWiki. I would consider that basic information. Perhaps you would too. So everything "controversial" can't be eliminated. Granted this stuff ''shouldn't'' be that controversial but I think it is just the surface of an underlying conflict that is only between one or more admins, and a few editors. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::I believe readers benefit from much information that some would consider to be controversial, and I think it very possible to end disputes more quickly and efficiently by ''neutralizing'' claims in articles, streamlining (or "outsourcing") arbitration/debates, having clear inclusion policies, etc. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | :::I believe readers benefit from much information that some would consider to be controversial, and I think it very possible to end disputes more quickly and efficiently by ''neutralizing'' claims in articles, streamlining (or "outsourcing") arbitration/debates, having clear inclusion policies, etc. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Would your proposed inclusion policy also apply to talk pages? If not, I still think it would reduce argument, because articles are more prolific, but if you allow one editor to post something controversial on a talk page, there is likely to be a rebuttal. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | :::Would your proposed inclusion policy also apply to talk pages? If not, I still think it would reduce argument, because articles are more prolific, but if you allow one editor to post something controversial on a talk page, there is likely to be a rebuttal. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::I could be wrong but my impression from Dilley is that he is not trying to be the end-all authority on everything here. He was asked to help resolve a dispute but no one really gave him a realistic proposal on how to do that. That is what we can do here. What I'm seeing now is that some editors and admins are demonstrating their own personal policies, that they are following or considering. They may reveal their "policies" here, on other talk pages, or with their behavior. Next we start to join our policies together and form "alliances" ("consensus"). The purpose of "war", as I see it, is to demonstrate who has the power. When a side becomes convinced they will "loose", they usually "surrender" ("agree"). I'm trying to create incentives for people to engage in constructive policy development rather than edit warring, ridiculing, etc. It is up to the administration/owners to decide whether they will support this or allow edit waring and intimidation to determine the content of articles. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | :::I could be wrong but my impression from Dilley is that he is not trying to be the end-all authority on everything here. He was asked to help resolve a dispute but no one really gave him a realistic proposal on how to do that. That is what we can do here. What I'm seeing now is that some editors and admins are demonstrating their own personal policies, that they are following or considering. They may reveal their "policies" here, on other talk pages, or with their behavior. Next we start to join our policies together and form "alliances" ("consensus"). The purpose of "war", as I see it, is to demonstrate who has the power. When a side becomes convinced they will "loose", they usually "surrender" ("agree"). I'm trying to create incentives for people to engage in constructive policy development rather than [[Edit War|edit warring]], ridiculing, etc. It is up to the administration/owners to decide whether they will support this or allow edit waring and intimidation to determine the content of articles. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-( | ::::I'm glad you find it invigorating. I still find it tiresome. :-( | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
== When Huw deleted 90% of the page == | == When Huw deleted 90% of the page == | ||
[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72573&oldid=72554 Here is the edit] and Huw's edit summary, "This looks to me like the most sensible version - ''please'' use the talk page to discuss changes rather than piling up quoted stuff on the project page". | [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72573&oldid=72554 Here is the edit] and Huw's edit summary, "This looks to me like the most sensible version - ''please'' use the talk page to discuss changes rather than piling up quoted stuff on the project page". | ||
:Felix and I discussed this in chat (one of the reasons I don't like to use "private" correspondence for these things). One issue we apparently agreed on, is that having a policy that forbids deleting things can be a source of confusion, edit waring, and premature blocking. You might notice how three RationalWiki bureaucrats, you, Nx, and Phantom Hoover, often delete large amounts of work written by others. Isn't it kind of ironic that you would restore the policy that forbids this?... and that you do this by deleting a large amount of work written by others? If you think the most "sensible" version says, "Controversial content should also not be deleted, but debated on the talk pages and/or improved by adding quotations, references, and anything else that may serve as evidence for (or against) it," please tell us how a sensible administrator should react when you delete controversial content? (A few other examples of Huw deleting content that was apparently "controversial" to him [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=71068&oldid=71030] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=70634&oldid=70618] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70039&oldid=70035] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70631&oldid=70606].) | :Felix and I discussed this in chat (one of the reasons I don't like to use "private" correspondence for these things). One issue we apparently agreed on, is that having a policy that forbids deleting things can be a source of confusion, [[Edit War|edit waring]], and premature blocking. You might notice how three RationalWiki bureaucrats, you, Nx, and Phantom Hoover, often delete large amounts of work written by others. Isn't it kind of ironic that you would restore the policy that forbids this?... and that you do this by deleting a large amount of work written by others? If you think the most "sensible" version says, "Controversial content should also not be deleted, but debated on the talk pages and/or improved by adding quotations, references, and anything else that may serve as evidence for (or against) it," please tell us how a sensible administrator should react when you delete controversial content? (A few other examples of Huw deleting content that was apparently "controversial" to him [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=71068&oldid=71030] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Lumeniki&diff=70634&oldid=70618] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70039&oldid=70035] [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=RationalWiki&diff=70631&oldid=70606].) | ||
::Hi Lumenos. You forgot to sign your post. Yeah, I ripped out a bunch of tripe. Oh well, may I way have been wrong. But your axe-grinding is getting really tiresome. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 02:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ::Hi Lumenos. You forgot to sign your post. Yeah, I ripped out a bunch of tripe. Oh well, may I way have been wrong. But your axe-grinding is getting really tiresome. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 02:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::Thanks for indicating this was my post. Now prepare to be utterly humiliated when your fewlishness is exposed before all. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | :::Thanks for indicating this was my post. Now prepare to be utterly humiliated when your fewlishness is exposed before all. ;-) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::I appologize if that appeared to be an "axe grind". I made my comments and questions as clear as I could. In contrast, declairing things "sensible" or "tripe", doesn't give us any reason to consider. Perhaps you ''were'' wrong, and maybe something you deleted wasn't tripe afterall? In the process of trying to argue a point or formulate a question, I often change my mind. I would think you should try that before making massive "corrections" to other people's work. On the other hand, maybe others find "long" arguments more annoying than deletions with trite explanations. Can't please everyone I guess. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | :::I appologize if that appeared to be an "axe grind". I made my comments and questions as clear as I could. In contrast, declairing things "sensible" or "tripe", doesn't give us any reason to consider. Perhaps you ''were'' wrong, and maybe something you deleted wasn't tripe afterall? In the process of trying to argue a point or formulate a question, I often change my mind. I would think you should try that before making massive "corrections" to other people's work. On the other hand, maybe others find "long" arguments more annoying than deletions with trite explanations. Can't please everyone I guess. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:We've apparently settled on a compromise. I reverted to the last version by Felix that links to [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies|this subpage in my userspace]]. I have now put the version that Huw reverted in that location, added some administrative quotes, changed many of my comments, and redirected the talk page back here. That page, including this talk page, should provide editors with a lot of information about the diverse views of administrators here. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:33, 23 June 2010 (EDT) | :We've apparently settled on a compromise. I reverted to the last version by Felix that links to [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies|this subpage in my userspace]]. I have now put the version that Huw reverted in that location, added some administrative quotes, changed many of my comments, and redirected the talk page back here. That page, including this talk page, should provide editors with a lot of information about the diverse views of administrators here. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 04:33, 23 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
edits