1,136
edits
WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines: Difference between revisions
reply to Marvel on "stick to facts" and Huw on deleting "facts" ;-)
Huw Powell (talk | contribs) |
(reply to Marvel on "stick to facts" and Huw on deleting "facts" ;-)) |
||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
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 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) | ||
: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#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) | |||
: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) | |||
:One way of changing an unsourced claim a to "fact", is to put the editor's name on it. It is like using a "citation needed" tag. But that looks weird and may reveal conflict, which seems to make many people uncomfortable. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
:You can write about criticism in a neutral way, simply saying someone claims something, but this may still be controversial. Comments are facts about what someone said. '''The question is more whether they are ''notable'' facts and whether we are going to allow criticism, links to criticisms, or debates.''' [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
:So I think the best way to deal with conflict is to invite everyone to help develop policy. For example if many admins agree on polices, most editors would probably go along with them or leave. It will take some time. There are many complex issues when you think about it, but I'm confidant that we will figure out how to meet our objectives, eventually. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 17:26, 7 October 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies == | == Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies == | ||
| Line 129: | Line 136: | ||
: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 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) | |||
:::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) | |||