1,136
edits
User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies (edit)
Revision as of 02:35, 23 June 2010
, 23 June 2010removing link to the "full" old version, rewrote intro, "undented" sections
(removing link to the "full" old version, rewrote intro, "undented" sections) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
(This is a derivative of an older version of [[WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines]]. It was edited by Lumenos and has comments from administrators. [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72571&oldid=72554 This] was the older version. An editor found [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex%3APolicies_and_Guidelines&diff=72571&oldid=72554 this version more sensible], I find this version more informative. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 22:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) ) | |||
---- | |||
---- | |||
[[Category: WikiIndex]] | [[Category: WikiIndex]] | ||
[[Category: Guidelines]] | [[Category: Guidelines]] | ||
| Line 22: | Line 21: | ||
A discussion of possible policies follows. See also [[WikiIndex_talk:Policies_and_Guidelines]]. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT) | A discussion of possible policies follows. See also [[WikiIndex_talk:Policies_and_Guidelines]]. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:35, 4 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
==Sources of inspiration== | |||
Other wikis have been through this already and have developed interesting guidelines, some of which we could use ourselves. | Other wikis have been through this already and have developed interesting guidelines, some of which we could use ourselves. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 27: | ||
* Wikipedia says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Assume Good Faith]. This is important! | * Wikipedia says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Assume Good Faith]. This is important! | ||
* WardsWiki has some words on [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GoodStyle Good Style] and a treatment of [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing]. | * WardsWiki has some words on [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GoodStyle Good Style] and a treatment of [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UnethicalEditing Unethical Editing]. | ||
*[[RationalWiki]] developed a set of "[http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards community standards]", and updated them successfully. All is documented on the [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:Community_Standards talk page] and its archives. (Added by Huw | *[[RationalWiki]] developed a set of "[http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards community standards]", and updated them successfully. All is documented on the [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:Community_Standards talk page] and its archives. (Added by [[user:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]]) | ||
Feel free to add others. -- [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:56, 4 October 2009 (EDT) | Feel free to add others. -- [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 03:56, 4 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
==Content inclusion rules== | |||
'''The following are proposals''': | '''The following are proposals''': | ||
| Line 42: | Line 41: | ||
:Well actually I was proposing that you have a speedy delete policy that is connected to the block policy for things like biographical information that is obtained in an illegitimate (illegal) manner. Same with things like spam and copyrighted work. Beyond those basic ("common sense") rules, you might not need to forbid things like "criticism", "original research", "unverified claims", etc, if these aren't contested. '''This is to address those who prefer NOT having "rules" that are "strict", "explicit", etc.''' I'm suggesting you need only get out the rule book when people aren't being "nice". But if you want a smoother ride, it might be easier to have a policy that wiki articles are to be always from a sympathetic viewpoint, for example. It is difficult to say if that would be less controversial than an "neutral point of view". [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT) | :Well actually I was proposing that you have a speedy delete policy that is connected to the block policy for things like biographical information that is obtained in an illegitimate (illegal) manner. Same with things like spam and copyrighted work. Beyond those basic ("common sense") rules, you might not need to forbid things like "criticism", "original research", "unverified claims", etc, if these aren't contested. '''This is to address those who prefer NOT having "rules" that are "strict", "explicit", etc.''' I'm suggesting you need only get out the rule book when people aren't being "nice". But if you want a smoother ride, it might be easier to have a policy that wiki articles are to be always from a sympathetic viewpoint, for example. It is difficult to say if that would be less controversial than an "neutral point of view". [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
==Criticism of wikis== | |||
Criticism is controversial. The majority of the WikiIndex administration doesn't seem to like having to mediate and deal with conflicts. Therefore I am suggesting that wiki articles will probably have to be in a sympathetic viewpoint. A possible alternative is to streamline or "outsource", the process of dispute resolution. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT) | Criticism is controversial. The majority of the WikiIndex administration doesn't seem to like having to mediate and deal with conflicts. Therefore I am suggesting that wiki articles will probably have to be in a sympathetic viewpoint. A possible alternative is to streamline or "outsource", the process of dispute resolution. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
===Bureaucrats=== | |||
MarkDilly seems to be the only active [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=500&group=bureaucrat bureaucrat], this is a quote from [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|this location]]: ''"I can understand that folks from Conservapedia don't want the page on [[WikiIndex]] about their wiki to be overrun by criticism - and I can also understand that people want to talk about problems they have with the wiki. Why not take it to a page [[Constructive Criticism of Conservapedia]] and simply make one line / link on the [[Conservapedia]] page pointing to this. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]''" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | MarkDilly seems to be the only active [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=500&group=bureaucrat bureaucrat], this is a quote from [[Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki#Conservapedia.2C_RationalWiki_etc|this location]]: ''"I can understand that folks from Conservapedia don't want the page on [[WikiIndex]] about their wiki to be overrun by criticism - and I can also understand that people want to talk about problems they have with the wiki. Why not take it to a page [[Constructive Criticism of Conservapedia]] and simply make one line / link on the [[Conservapedia]] page pointing to this. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]''" [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
===Sysops=== | |||
[http://www.wikiindex.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=500&group=sysop This link] shows you the current sysops. | [http://www.wikiindex.org/Special:Listusers?username=&limit=500&group=sysop This link] shows you the current sysops. | ||
==== DavidCary ==== | |||
DavidCary (sysop) writing on this subject can be found [[Talk:RationalWiki/Archive1#Wikiindex|here]]. I am reproducing this quote below. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | DavidCary (sysop) writing on this subject can be found [[Talk:RationalWiki/Archive1#Wikiindex|here]]. I am reproducing this quote below. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
| Line 82: | Line 81: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
====Felix==== | |||
''"You just said it yourself: "they would be quite happy with no criticism and they don't know yet whether they should have to do any of this work". Can you guess why? Because they ''should not'' have to. [...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:47, 25 September 2009 (EDT)"'' [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=71987&oldid=71985] | ''"You just said it yourself: "they would be quite happy with no criticism and they don't know yet whether they should have to do any of this work". Can you guess why? Because they ''should not'' have to. [...] [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 01:47, 25 September 2009 (EDT)"'' [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationalWiki%2FArchive2&diff=71987&oldid=71985] | ||
| Line 98: | Line 97: | ||
Please understand, the reason I am posting these quotes is not to reignite an old conflict, but rather to show the difficulties involved with creating articles here, that are not in the "sympathetic" point of view. The Lumeniki article is another example. Two editors deleted large amounts of it on the grounds that it is too long for a "vanity wiki" or that the style was inappropriate. MarkDilley responded with this comment ''"I wouldn't say it was the norm, but it doesn't strike me as being 'wrong'."''[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ALumeniki&diff=70688&oldid=70628] [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | Please understand, the reason I am posting these quotes is not to reignite an old conflict, but rather to show the difficulties involved with creating articles here, that are not in the "sympathetic" point of view. The Lumeniki article is another example. Two editors deleted large amounts of it on the grounds that it is too long for a "vanity wiki" or that the style was inappropriate. MarkDilley responded with this comment ''"I wouldn't say it was the norm, but it doesn't strike me as being 'wrong'."''[http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ALumeniki&diff=70688&oldid=70628] [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
====Proxima (no longer a sysop)==== | |||
Are the articles on wikis to be sympathetic, critical, both, or "neutral"? ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | Are the articles on wikis to be sympathetic, critical, both, or "neutral"? ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | ||
| Line 107: | Line 106: | ||
:::It's cumbersome at [[Wikinfo]] but it's better than not allowing criticism at all.[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:34, 30 August 2009 (EDT) [Proxima is no longer sysop. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | :::It's cumbersome at [[Wikinfo]] but it's better than not allowing criticism at all.[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:34, 30 August 2009 (EDT) [Proxima is no longer sysop. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:35, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
==Disputed information== | |||
* '''Tag:''' Placing "<del>warning</del> tags" on info that is dubious, impolite, etc. ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | * '''Tag:''' Placing "<del>warning</del> tags" on info that is dubious, impolite, etc. ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | ||
| Line 117: | Line 116: | ||
::We don't need to agree on a particular version of any article. If something's wrong with the content, we can simply mark the trouble spots with notes like "citation needed" and "ambiguous - please clarify". The one thing that should be a no-no is reverting or deleting edits with no good reason. By the way, "because I say so", or "because that's the way we do over at wiki X" are NOT good reasons. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:11, 14 September 2009 (EDT) | ::We don't need to agree on a particular version of any article. If something's wrong with the content, we can simply mark the trouble spots with notes like "citation needed" and "ambiguous - please clarify". The one thing that should be a no-no is reverting or deleting edits with no good reason. By the way, "because I say so", or "because that's the way we do over at wiki X" are NOT good reasons. [[Felix Pleşoianu]] | <small>[[User talk:Felix|talk]]</small> 02:11, 14 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== Point of view, commenting in articles == | |||
[I suggested what I thought would be called a "neutral point of view" for this article. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:14, September 21, 2009 (UTC)] | [I suggested what I thought would be called a "neutral point of view" for this article. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:14, September 21, 2009 (UTC)] | ||
| Line 136: | Line 135: | ||
:::I've tried to remove or strike-out most stuff that may be considered my POV. I've left only some things that the administration has responded to. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:55, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | :::I've tried to remove or strike-out most stuff that may be considered my POV. I've left only some things that the administration has responded to. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 20:55, 22 June 2010 (EDT) | ||
==Biographical info== | |||
For now I would suggest the standard be defined by "local" laws and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Wikipedia's policy on biographical info] until a standard more specific to WikiIndex can be established. ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | For now I would suggest the standard be defined by "local" laws and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Wikipedia's policy on biographical info] until a standard more specific to WikiIndex can be established. ~~ [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | ||
| Line 143: | Line 142: | ||
:I linked to the wrong Wikipedia policy. I'm really thinking more of a speedy deletion policy that applies to talk pages also. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT) | :I linked to the wrong Wikipedia policy. I'm really thinking more of a speedy deletion policy that applies to talk pages also. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 02:02, 5 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
==Common sense proposal [for this project page]== | |||
This is a small and relatively inactive wiki. It hardly needs a very large policies and guidelines section - which admins and users are unlikely to read anyway. What it needs are active, fair-minded admins who use common sense. | This is a small and relatively inactive wiki. It hardly needs a very large policies and guidelines section - which admins and users are unlikely to read anyway. What it needs are active, fair-minded admins who use common sense. | ||
| Line 152: | Line 151: | ||
: ''Frankly - the common sense understanding of how to prevent it, was for everyone to stop the name calling, stop the edit warring and slow down. This page is in need of pairing down and I think BobM provides a clear path on that road. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]'' | : ''Frankly - the common sense understanding of how to prevent it, was for everyone to stop the name calling, stop the edit warring and slow down. This page is in need of pairing down and I think BobM provides a clear path on that road. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]'' | ||
::(Based on the above comment and [[User_talk:Lumenos#Please slow down|this one]] I moved the content of [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines&oldid=71512 this page] to [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies|this subpage]], and replaced the page with Bob's suggestion. I have since moved administrative comments back in. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:22, September 21, 2009 (UTC) | ::(Based on the above comment and [[User_talk:Lumenos#Please slow down|this one]] I moved the content of [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex:Policies_and_Guidelines&oldid=71512 this page] to [[User:Lumenos/WikiIndex (unwritten) policies|this subpage]], and replaced the page with Bob's suggestion. I have since moved administrative comments back in. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:22, September 21, 2009 (UTC) | ||