331
edits
User talk:Abd: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→So basically...: no, he is not saying that. He said something offhand about 5 years ago, that you made be that.
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) (→So basically...: new section) |
(→So basically...: no, he is not saying that. He said something offhand about 5 years ago, that you made be that.) |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Mark is [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex_(unwritten)_policies#Bureaucrats|saying]] that we should in fact have attack pages, as long as they're labeled "constructive criticism". [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 17:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC) | Mark is [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex_(unwritten)_policies#Bureaucrats|saying]] that we should in fact have attack pages, as long as they're labeled "constructive criticism". [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 17:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
*That comment was not made on the page you edited, i.e., what you cite. It was copied there by Lumenos. The original edit was referenced as a page since archived, the present edit is on [[Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki/Archive 2008-09]]. It's just an off-hand comment, an idea. Bad Idea, I might add, though not Truly Terrible. It's just what someone might think up off-the-cuff. | |||
*That discussion went essentially nowhere, and Lumenos' goal was to document the varieties of opinion among WikiIndex administrators. | |||
*We have actually faced this problem, to a degree, on Wikiversity. See [[Wikiversity:Landmark Education]]. Key to the solution is that the top-level mainspace page was forced into sections, three were created. One was mine, one was Cirt's and there is a third for general community editing, as would have been the case before forking. The top-level page may be edited by the community, too, but the request is for rigorous neutrality there, which could require avoiding any controversy at all. Everything under my section is my responsibility. Others may edit it, but because that entire section is attributed to me, I have a natural right to control it. | |||
*That right is not absolute. If I used the section for purposes that are contrary to those of Wikiversity, I could be stopped. Likewise, if Cirt violates policy, he could be stopped. He might actually be doing that, but not so egregiously that I need to confront it, myself, and, for obvious reasons, it would be better that this is entirely handled by someone else. What I did was negotiate that compromise with him. Cirt is famously combative. We had practically no trouble, it was easy. And he got to do what he wanted to do, document all the dirt. I can still comment on it on Talk pages within his section. | |||
*However, whether or not this solution would work here, I don't know. Mark suggested a mainspace page for Constructive criticism of Conservapedia. Bad idea, and terrible name. As a Wikiversitan, I've become quite sensitive to naming practice that create huge messes. Make it a subpage, if subpages are allowed in mainspace here, or if not, then talk subpages. And don't label it Constructive criticism. Just call it Conservapedia/Criticism, and allow the creation of attributed sections, as with the Wikiversity resource. And if a user abuses a section, warn the user, and block if necessary, and delete if necessary. | |||
*But I don't see from the discussion that WikiIndex wants to open the can of worms. | |||
*Meanwhile, looking at those discussions, there have been ''issues'' here, before, see, for example, [http://wikiindex.org/Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki/Archive_2008-09#Proxima_Centauri]. Proxima Centauri is a RatWiki user. | |||
*See also [[Talk:The Conservapedia RationalWiki war]] | |||
*Then, for actual practice here, related to this highly controversial topic, see | |||
:*[[Conservapedia]] | |||
:*[[RationalWiki]] | |||
*What I notice is that the "help" for would-be Conservapedia users goes a little outside that mission, and goes into sarcasm. The RationalWiki article conveys little of the what actually goes on there. It's clear that the Conservapedia article is more critical and the RatWiki article less so. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 18:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC) | |||