1,136
edits
WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WikiIndex talk:Policies and Guidelines (edit)
Revision as of 21:10, 14 October 2009
, 14 October 2009→Proposal: Articles should preferably stick to facts
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
::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) | |||
:::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) | |||
:::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) | |||
:::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) | |||
== Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies == | == Things to learn from the RationalWiki policies == | ||