WikiIndex talk:Prohibited content: Difference between revisions

I removed the policy template to make this a proposed policy. It would need a lot of change to be appropriate.  --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:It's descriptive, not prescriptive, of WikiIndex practice. Can you provide any evidence that this is not the current practice? [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::Needless to say, I reverted. It's not a policy because I Say It's Not, and the community will overrule me if it chooses. I trust communities, even when I don't.

::Not worth providing proof. Waste of time. No documentation was provided of so-called "actual practice," a couple of deletions by a single administrator does not establish actual practice. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::Welcome to Wikilandia. However, except on a very small wiki (smaller than this one), a single sysop cannot establish the community practice that can then be codified as policy, and the community may choose to review those actions, etc., etc. Or there is no community, which happens on small wikis. It even happens on large ones. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, in this case it was ''three'' sysops who established a community practice since our wiki isn't quite small enough that it would've happened with the support of only one. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 19:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::::No, Leucosticte *interpreted* their actions as setting a community practice. We are now trumping that with discussion. How Wikis Work 1A. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::::My point was that discussion trumps arbitrary, ad hoc, sysop decisions, usually. The discussion that has existed so far has been heavily influenced by ''impressions.'' Created by L. So we'll see. This is a page for the establishment of policy. Policy also requires ''application and interpretation.'' There are procedures for that, mostly not established on WikiIndex because the level of conflict was low. Procedures can make it all much easier and more predictable. But wiki oldtimers then complain about "instruction creep" and "bureaucracy." But the future arrives anyway, one way or another. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This policy will need improvement before it could be considered.  While I like the idea of barring sicko material and self spam, the draft has been written in a stilted manner by L to indicate how ridiculous he thinks it is.  [[Special:Contributions/173.255.192.138|173.255.192.138]] 18:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:So rewrite it. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 19:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

ChildPorn.info was a site that provided fairly neutral informative content about child porn policy debates, without linking to any child porn sites or otherwise facilitating or condoning illegal activity, and it got deleted. It's evident that listings of sites that cover those types of issues in a neutral way won't be tolerated on WikiIndex. I disagree with what the anon said, that Wikipedia covers pederasty and similar topics in a neutral way. Those articles are definitely biased against pederasty and so on, describing those behaviors as child sexual abuse. That's the reason why a listing for Wikipedia is allowed here.

:While policy should reflect actual practice, actual practice on a case-by-case basis does not establish policy. L. has swallowed the Wikipedia tropes, which exist to serve the dominant clique on Wikipedia. Wiki policy is both normative and as-practiced, and studies of actual practice can be used to modify policy, and actual practice ideally reflects community consensus as to norms. Both. If actual practice is ignored, user time is wasted creating content that will be deleted or worse. If community consensus is ignored, enforcement of actual practice will be spotty and unreliable. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

What about self-promotional wikis; weren't there objections raised to listing them on WikiIndex as well? [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 19:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:Can of worms. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 19:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:::All of which was in accordance with the letter and spirit of the rules, which said it was okay to create listings of one's wikis, and also that the author could have the pages deleted upon request. Also, WikiIndex is partly a wiki about wiki people, and I've even seen [http://wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Category:Wiki_People&oldid=556 instructions] urging people to write about themselves on WikiIndex. I don't know how a rule could be written that would draw a clear boundary between the kind of self-promotion that WikiIndex has embraced from the beginning, and the kind of self-promotion you're objecting to.[[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 19:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have an all or nothing policy.  Even with a no linking policy on certain wikis, we would still give them attention and plenty of people would try to go to them, even if they are malicious.  Plus with spam self promotion by narcissistic loner admins, they'll still use WikiIndex as a dumping ground for their nonsense even if they can't link directly to it; the name of the wiki in Google would be enough.  –maelstr0m  [[Special:Contributions/173.255.192.138|173.255.192.138]] 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:WikiIndex has traditionally allowed "narcissistic loner admins" to have their wikis linked, if they are wikis. This is a category being made up to attack a specific user, never mind that he invites it. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

After examination of the policy, I mostly concur with it, but would like to make the following changes and caveats:

* Sites that provide material legal in some areas, illegal in others (like [[Wikilivres]]) - I have patronized them myself, and they explicitly point out what is legal and what is not and to be mindful of the legality of using their material in the user's legal jurisdiction, and I believe all links for sites like this should stand, but their pages should contain similar legal disclaimers.

* Sites Promoting Child Molestation and/or Pornography (BoyWiki and Newgon Wiki for example) - I'd put my foot down. There is absolutely no reason to give them a page at all. Even if the content on the wikis is not illegal per se, they are advocating criminal behavior as normal and providing ways to hide such acts from the law and shielding those who commit such acts. I see no reason to give such places a haven to promote themselves.

::::::Naw, I don't take candy from babies. People who believe they are right make wagers, it's supposed to prove something. What it proves is testosterone and bull-headness. Which, of course, has nothing to do with being right or wrong, it's ME, right or wrong. And does restoring [[Boywiki]] have anything to do with the topic here? Boywiki may be a test of the policy, and wikis are not bound by policy; the goal is to harmonize practice and policy, for efficiency, and that can take years. Policy cannot require any administrator to do anything, another basic wiki principle. So if the deletion is contrary to policy, but no administrator is willing to restore, it is not restored. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 14:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

:''Also, listing sites that advocate legalization of activities that most of the public currently deems immoral could offend some readers and harm WikiIndex's reputation.''

It is possible that as many as a third of experienced users do not actually support that policy, but experience is, again, that attempting to discuss it leads to massive flame wars, where people get very upset -- in both directions. My own response is to notice the indirection, "inappropriate," inappropriate according to whom? Dutch users, Texan users, what? However, nobody debates the policy because as set up, it's not so much of a problem. As well, there are academic studies claiming that the reputed harm of some kinds of "inappropriate relationships" has been exaggerated. I am *not* agreeing with those studies, and, remember, I'm a father, with seven children and six grandchildren. What I do know is that the entire topic is one that is almost impossible to discuss rationally, it tore RationalWiki apart.

Leucosticte got himself blocked on meta for attempting to discuss global child protection policy. The blocking admin was actually protecting him, but L. came here and immediately created a bio for that admin. [[MZMcBride]]. I tagged that for deletion, Leucosticte removed the tag. Had Leucosticte been allowed to continue what he was doing on meta, a global ban would have been likely, I know that community well. What Wikipedia has learned is that even discussing the topic is highly disruptive. So our own policy should avoid setting up conditions for such discussion. Nobody discusses the phone directory, whether a porn shop should be allowed to have a listing. Or a pedophile, for that matter. If they have a phone, a listing. I'm suggesting that if they have a wiki, a listing. The listing may be minimal, and, again, the whole concept that WikiIndex exists to "discuss the wikisphere" is a problem. That requires an active community, supervised or facilitated, and I don't see that this is regular here, vide Leucosticte making that non-deletion decision. Because that page was relatively harmless, I didn't make a fuss about it.