On 5 Jun 2006 at 13:53, "Selina ." <wikipediareview(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Racism is illegal and as well as the editor puts Wikipedia in a bad
> position. If people can't put bigotry aside and instead try to force
> articles into their personal view of the world, it's right to ban them.
How is racism illegal? Racism is a belief system, and unless you
have a regime that prosecutes thought-crimes, it can't be made
illegal. Certain forms of speech or action that are racially-
related, and perhaps motivated by racism, are illegal in certain
places, though the free-speech protections of some countries'
constitutions place sharp limits on the criminalization of pure
speech without action in those places, including the United States.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 6/5/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> > You could always put "See also: [[:Category:The Beatles]]" (I think
> > that's the syntax) in the description for [[Category:British rock
> > bands]].
>
> That's probably not bad. The page would have a basic structure like:
>
> Description
> Related categories <-- new
> Subcategories
> Articles in this category
>
> People *want* to put "related categories", but they break the category
> system if they make them subcats. We need to channel that desire.
>
> Steve
While playing around with perl and [[Category:Airports]] last night I
noticed an instance of what will probably be another common one:
[[Category:Lists of airports]] is a subcategory. There are probably
enough instances of that sort of thing that we would have to make an
exception (in the interest of consensus), but the cleaner solution
would be to go with something like the related categories idea above.
I should also note that [[Category:Airports]] itself is treated like a
theme for articles, but the subcategories are treated like attributes.
(Actually, now that I look at it directly on Wikipedia I see "Airport
lounges" and "Airport operators" are also subcategories. I didn't
notice that in my original, very fast, skim of the tree, but looking
back it *was* there).
If anyone wants to take a look at my "tree" for airports, or my perl
script (which is really simplistic), let me know where I can upload
it. To run it you need to download and import two mysql database
files, enwiki-20060518-categorylinks.sql (290 megs) and
enwiki-20060518-page.sql (354 megs). The "tree" looks like this:
Airports_by_country
*Airports_in_Afghanistan
*#Bagram_Air_Base
*#Kabul_International_Airport
*Airports_in_Albania
*#Rinas_Mother_Teresa_Airport
[...]
*Airports_in_Australia
**Royal_Australian_Air_Force_bases
***Former_RAAF_Bases
***#RAAF_Station_Archerfield
***#RAAF_Station_Bairnsdale
***#RAAF_Base_Rathmines
***#RAAF_Station_Tocumwal
**#RAAF_Base_Amberley
**#RAAF_Bare_Bases
Are air force bases airports? I'd say so.
I also tried making a tree for [[Category:Buildings and structures]]
(a "parent" of airports). That one grew quite messy, and my script
bailed at 10 levels of recursion, so I haven't really analysed it
much. I'll try turning it up to 20 or 25 and see what happens.
Anthony
(Sorry for the cross posting, but there are several groups who might
find this interesting.)
For years now, it has been common for people to claim that "all the good
editors are jumping ship" or "we are losing our best people".
Generally, this has not proven to be true: people come and go, to be
sure, but as some people drift away, others have drifted in. Whether
the rate of burnout is "too high" or "too low" or "just right" is quite
hard to say.
However, it ought to be possible to at least quantify what that rate
actually is, by using the Erik Zachte statistics or a modification of them.
I would be fascinated if we could figure out such statistics as
"For any given edit, what is the average length of service of the
editor?" "For any given edit, what is the median length of service of
the editor?" These could be measured by either time since first edit,
or total number of edits or (perhaps best) some weighted average of the
edit history.
It would be nice to track that number over time... are we becoming
"younger" as a community, "older" as a community? Staying about the
same? Are old-timers sticking around longer than they used to, or
jumping ship faster?
There are also a whole set of related questions around newbies:
Are newbies more likely to stick around, or less likely to stick around,
than they were a year ago. Some people feel we are being overrun by
newbies, others feel that we are becoming a more closed and cliqueish
community which does not welcome newbies.
I would measure this by saying "Of people who made at least 100 edits a
month ago, how many of them made at least 100 edits this month". And
similar stats for "at least 10 edits". (Merely looking at "new
accounts" would not be right, because we had a huge spike in new account
creation when it became necessary to have an account to create a new page.)
--Jimbo
--
#######################################################################
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
# http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
#######################################################################
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:49:21 +0200
>
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >> The admins are only part of the community now
and
> >> will stay like that in the future, as far as I
can
> >> see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
> >> believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
> >> see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this
list
> >> recently. I think it can be useful and can be
> >> developed further. I tried to outline some
important
> >> points which may reduce the conflicts between the
> >> admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
> >> is feasible?
> >
> > I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment. Can
> > you send it to me?
> >
>
>I've just created the proposed policy on
[[Wikipedia:OURS]].
>
>--
>Raphael
>
By the way, I would like to thank you for also
improving the proposal to a more professional and a
better version.
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:49:21 +0200
>
>Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >> The admins are only part of the community now
and
> >> will stay like that in the future, as far as I
can
> >> see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
> >> believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
> >> see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this
list
> >> recently. I think it can be useful and can be
> >> developed further. I tried to outline some
important
> >> points which may reduce the conflicts between the
> >> admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
> >> is feasible?
> >
> > I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment. Can
> > you send it to me?
> >
>
>I've just created the proposed policy on
[[Wikipedia:OURS]].
>
>--
>Raphael
>
Raphael, I do appreciate for it. You are sure
brave. The troublemaker ([[User:TT]]) is in action
though, did you realize that?
Best, Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>From: John Lee <johnleemk(a)gawab.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:48:26 +0800
>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
>
> >The proposal [[WP:OURS]] is below. Since I am
> >referring to another proposal
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> >in this proposal, I copy-pasted the updated version
of
> >the Wikiethics proposal below too for your
> >convenience. Right after the proposals, I provided
> >further explanations about them.
> >
> >Please consider this as a sincere effort from a
> >relatively new user who lived through some hard
times
> >because of some structural problems. I would like
to
> >see the success of this project like many others,
> >liked the philosophy behind Wiki movement, and
would
> >like to suggest some small changes for a better
> >environment at which Wikiediting has some written
> >ethical statements and standards and user rights
and
> >admin privileges are well-balanced. That, I believe
> >will have some positive impact on Wikipedia. The
> >proposals are needed in my opinion if Wikipedia
will
> >be a welcoming community and an encyclopedia at the
> >same time in the future while it is growing.
> >
> >
>Just so we're all on the same page, what is the
"philosophy" behind the
>Wiki movement? Also, what makes this relevant to
Wikipedia? Wikipedia is
>an encyclopaedia being built through a wiki because a
wiki happens to be
>the most efficient way to write an encyclopaedia, not
for any
>philosophical reasons.
>
The philosophy behind wikipedia refers to: writing an
online free encyclopedia by contribution of the
volunteers.
> >(The sections below are my earlier messages to some
> >people during the discussion on this list. I
combined
> >the relevant ones together and cc'ing to the list
if
> >anyone else missed them too.)
> >
> >------------
> >[[WP:OURS]]
> >------------
> >
> >[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
> >ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
> >between sysops and users.
> >
> >[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
> >RelationS) as well.]
> >
> >
>Um....what problems are there between sysops and
users that need
>clarification? I rarely see a strict dividing line
between admins and
>ordinary users. In many polemical meta issues,
Wikipedians have not been
>divided along any demarcation boundary that would
indicate a significant
>causatory relationship between the sysop flag and
one's views of a
>particular subject. The fact that admins often seem
to "gang up" is
>usually caused by the fact that they've been here the
longest, so they
>*tend* to have a better view of what's going on.
([[Correlation does not
>imply causation]], for anyone who's interested.)
If you are reading the messages on this list that
would be enough to see the problems.
>
> >1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
> >
> >'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
> >encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
> >well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
> >(e.g.
>
>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
> >
> >
>Those "ethics" are controversial and are not
supported by the community.
>What's wrong with current policy that necessitates a
new policy?
It cannot be said that they are not supported by the
community, as explained at the end of last message.
Discussing the standards and ethics in Wikipedia and
related policies and guidelines coherently is very
useful for both newcomers as a guide and old users as
a reference.
>
> >[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
> >controversial issue are very important to address.
If
> >the standards are applied strictly to everyone,
that
> >would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
> >disputes.]
> >
> >
>This ignores the fact that in a [[meritocracy]]
(which includes
>encyclopaedia publishing houses), some people's
opinions do count more
>than others.
>
>
If the problem is about how Wikipedia works that might
be true. If the dispute is related to a content of an
article that connot be true. Whoever knows the subject
should be listened.
>
> >[It is easier to write an article on a purely
> >technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
> >etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause
some
> >problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
> >admins are also part of the disputes. Their
experience
> >and privileges then does not constitute a base for
> >neutralization of the article but -let me put it
this
> >way- rather make them a target for
> >accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to
explain
> >only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
> >realize that there is no stronger factor to polish
the
> >reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
> >of the controversial issues.]
> >
> >
>This seems to be grandstanding to me. What're you
getting at?
>
> >[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
> >started. I could not have a chance to put it to a
vote
> >properly.]
> >
> >2. '''Subject oriented study groups and
committees'''
> >
> >Based on the area of specialization and interest,
> >experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
> >experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
> >work on the controversial articles categorized
> >as being related to their area of specialization
and
> >can make recommendations on particular points. If
> >necessary, the study groups may also supervise
> >controversial articles until the dispute is
resolved.
> >
> >
>This idea may have some merit, and is worth
exploring. It depends on how
>the community reacts, however. Such committees should
not be placed on a
>pedestal, nor should they be given excessive
privileges. Standing
>mini-arbcoms for dealing with content disputes is
something worth
>considering, nevertheless.
>
Yes. It does not have to be in an ArbCom form either.
It is natural to think that people with similar
interests and area of specialization have better view
on a related article. It is not hard to find a way
that they form groups to discuss the points which lead
to disputes. Can you imagine how can that eliminate
edit-wars and 3RR violations, etc?
> >[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is
to
> >form some study groups based on the area of
> >specialization of the users, say 'history of
science',
> >etc., for example. When the disputes arise,
> >the users may ask the opinion of the related study
> >groups. The group may vote if necessary on the
dispute
> >and comes up with a decision. It does not have to
be a
> >final decision though, as usual. Many
> >violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be
> >diminished that way which may result in a more
> >friendly atmosphere between users and admins who
feel
> >obligated to force the rules consciously.]
> >
> >3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
> >
> >Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
> >admin mentor when s/he create an account in
Wikipedia.
> >The users blocked by more than 3 admins are
required
> >to have a mentor. Users can change their
> >mentor anytime they like before involved in a
dispute
> >by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
> >mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and
these
> >accounts will be managed as before.
> >
> >
>What is the purpose of this? Isn't this just coddling
confirmed problem
>editors? This smells like pointless [[m:instruction
creep]].
>
This is already explained below. This part propose to
educate the users about wikiediting rather then
irritate them, teach them a lesson by blocking, etc.
> >[This will indicate the popularity of the admins
and
> >will provide a dynamic measure of their success.
This
> >dynamic approach might be better than reelecting
them
> >periodically. There is almost no accountability of
> >admins in a practical way. They should be
accountable
> >to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
> >added to this too, if someone thinks is of
paramount
> >importance.]
> >
> >
>We've gone down this road before. RECONFIRMATION OF
ADMINS IS NOT A GOOD
>IDEA. (Refer to the talk page archives of RfA.) Also,
[[WP:NOT]] a
>democracy. Popularity should never be a factor in
deciding whether an
>admin should remain an admin or not. The only thing
that matters in any
>encyclopaedia publishing house is whether an editor
or supervisor's net
>contribution is positive or negative.
>
I did not propose reaffirmation process. I did not
propose that the popularity should be a factor in
determining adminship either. All I am saying is this:
popularity is an indication of how admins do
their job. If they are nice to users, trying to help
them, educate them related to wikiediting the users
will chose them as a mentor. The proposal does not
talk about if an admin becomes unpopular s/he
should quit.
> >4. '''Limited block policy'''
> >
> >A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the
case
> >the mentor is not available, an explanation should
be
> >posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
> >unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is
appropriate.
> >Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
> >
> >Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not
by
> >an admin.
> >
> >
>Any reason for this? As far as I can tell, rogue
decisions are undone
>pretty quickly (refer to Carnildo's actions in the
Joeyramoney scandal)
>and legitimate decisions stand. If it ain't broke,
why fix it?
>
The indefinite block is an ultimate decision in my
opinion. An admin should not have that privilege.
> >[Admins know the rules better. If there is a
concern
> >about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
> >agreement on a block based on the rules. It should
not
> >be hard to convince an admin about the
applicability
> >of a specific policy. This approach put the
discussion
> >of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
> >rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
> >surprisingly, results in a block. This part also
gives
> >the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
> >unnecessary but do not want to step on another
admin's
> >toe.]
> >
> >[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so
far
> >should be able to ask for an unblock,
unconditionally,
> >after this policy gets approval, if it does. That
may
> >bring some reconciliations and peace
> >to the project.]
> >
> >
>WHY?
>
>This seems to be a very poorly thought out proposal
to me, with no
>unifying theme. It appears to be something created
solely for the
>purpose of mollycoddling trolls who have issues of
their own. Wikipedia
>is not a counseling centre, and it is not a place for
the reformation of
>editors who cannot work with other editors either. If
you have personal
>problems in working with other Wikipedians, and as a
result are
>contributing a net negative, you have no place here.
End of story. We're
>an encyclopaedia publishing house, not a democracy.
>
>John
>
It is explained why [[WP:OURS]] is proposed at the
beginning. It will serve as a toll to strengthen and
improve the efficiency of the bridges between
community and encyclopedia component of Wikipedia.
It can also serve as a tool to enhance community
spirit. I did not say it is perfect. It is a first
step towards clarification and balancing admin-user
relations, though.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
>Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 18:07:18 -0500
>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> > The admins are only part of the community now
and
> > will stay like that in the future, as far as I can
> > see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
> > believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
> > see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this list
> > recently. I think it can be useful and can be
> > developed further. I tried to outline some
important
> > points which may reduce the conflicts between the
> > admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
> > is feasible?
>
>I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment. Can
>you send it to me?
The proposal [[WP:OURS]] is below. Since I am
referring to another proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
in this proposal, I copy-pasted the updated version of
the Wikiethics proposal below too for your
convenience. Right after the proposals, I provided
further explanations about them.
Please consider this as a sincere effort from a
relatively new user who lived through some hard times
because of some structural problems. I would like to
see the success of this project like many others,
liked the philosophy behind Wiki movement, and would
like to suggest some small changes for a better
environment at which Wikiediting has some written
ethical statements and standards and user rights and
admin privileges are well-balanced. That, I believe
will have some positive impact on Wikipedia. The
proposals are needed in my opinion if Wikipedia will
be a welcoming community and an encyclopedia at the
same time in the future while it is growing.
(The sections below are my earlier messages to some
people during the discussion on this list. I combined
the relevant ones together and cc'ing to the list if
anyone else missed them too.)
------------
[[WP:OURS]]
------------
[[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
between sysops and users.
[This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
RelationS) as well.]
1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
(e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
[I think content disputes and the disputes around a
controversial issue are very important to address. If
the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
disputes.]
[It is easier to write an article on a purely
technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience
and privileges then does not constitute a base for
neutralization of the article but -let me put it this
way- rather make them a target for
accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the
reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
of the controversial issues.]
[I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote
properly.]
2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''
Based on the area of specialization and interest,
experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
work on the controversial articles categorized
as being related to their area of specialization and
can make recommendations on particular points. If
necessary, the study groups may also supervise
controversial articles until the dispute is resolved.
[Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
form some study groups based on the area of
specialization of the users, say 'history of science',
etc., for example. When the disputes arise,
the users may ask the opinion of the related study
groups. The group may vote if necessary on the dispute
and comes up with a decision. It does not have to be a
final decision though, as usual. Many
violations such as 3RR, edit-wars, etc. can be
diminished that way which may result in a more
friendly atmosphere between users and admins who feel
obligated to force the rules consciously.]
3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia.
The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required
to have a mentor. Users can change their
mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these
accounts will be managed as before.
[This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
will provide a dynamic measure of their success. This
dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them
periodically. There is almost no accountability of
admins in a practical way. They should be accountable
to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount
importance.]
4. '''Limited block policy'''
A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
an admin.
[Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not
be hard to convince an admin about the applicability
of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion
of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives
the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's
toe.]
[And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally,
after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may
bring some reconciliations and peace
to the project.]
-------------------------
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
-------------------------
{{Proposed|[[WP:ETH]]}}
{{Policy in a nutshell|<CENTER>Be wise and
responsible...</CENTER>}}
{{Policylist}}
[[Image:Nuvola apps kwrite.png|80px|left]]
'''Wikiethics''' (Wikipedia editorial standards and
ethics) include the principles of [[ethical]]
standards related to editing articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has a body of policies that presuppose the
existence of ethical standards that reflects the
common heritage of human [[literacy]] in both the
editors contributing, and the encyclopedia itself.
This document aims to outline their parameters and
scope. Understanding the Wiki policies coherently,
their place in the whole picture and their relation to
the Wiki ethics and standards are the main issues to
be addressed.
== Editorial Guidelines ==
It is helpful to have a productive editorial
discussion concerning Wikipedia articles when disputes
arise. The following sections provide important
guidelines for editing an article.
=== Article-based classifications ===
Owing to the diversity of backgrounds that the editors
come from, the interpretation of terms like
'offensive', 'censorship', 'pornography', 'minority',
'acceptability' etc. should always be decided on an
article by article basis, and by following
[[WP:CON|consensus]] based on the judgement of the
contributing editors in that particular article.
Generalizations do not help as it is almost impossible
to agree on the definitions of these particular terms
based on cultures, religions, life styles, etc. As a
quantitative measure to 'majority', 'supermajority'
and 'consensus', by [[Wiktionary:majority|majority]]
more than 50% of the contributing editors is meant, by
supermajority more than 75%, and the term
[[Wiktionary:consensus|consensus]] refer to 'no
significant disapproval'.
=== Collective consciousness ===
Collective consciousness can be explained as [[common
sense]] and a common understanding between the
contributing editors. This does not strictly exclude
ideas from minorities in a particular discussion. With
Wikipedia policies in mind, consensus among the
contributing editors should determine what is
'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in a particular
discussion.
=== The culture of compromise ===
[[Empathy]] and [[sincerity]] towards '[[the other]]'
during the discussion of articles by editors or third
parties is a powerful tool for [[compromise]].
=== Conflict resolution ===
It is generally possible to resolve a conflict by
taking all possible options available into the
consideration.
=== Images ===
If a picture is causing concerns in an article,
choosing visual or verbal descriptions based on the
judgment of the contributing editors might be helpful.
Changing the image with a more encyclopedic one,
lowering the picture in the article, providing a link
instead, or posting a warning template are other
options can be considered.
=== Polls ===
A [['straw poll']] on a particular argument or on part
of an article can be started at any time to see where
the community stands on that particular issue. It is
reasonable to think that an [['approval poll']],
however, needs to be started upon the completion of
the proposals based on a consensus.
=== Discussion pages ===
Editors are encouraged to seek whatever process is
most likely to result in consensus and build a better
encyclopedia using the existing guidelines. For
efficiency of the discussions on an article one
''might'' chose to copy the part from the article onto
the discussion page, express his/her ideas why s/he
thinks the part is not appropriate and give his/her
suggestion to fix the problem. This could help to get
more input from the other editors and consequently may
lead to a better article.
=== Anonymity ===
The editor's [[anonymity]] does not exempt them from a
responsibility to their personal ethics.
==Editorial standards==
High editorial standards would add to the reputation
of Wikipedia. Wikipedia recognizes the standards which
are shaped for centuries and currently practised in
the mainstream media, for example,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Harm_limitatio…
Harm limitation principle], and
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Taste.2C_decen…
Taste, decency and acceptability] listed in
[[Journalism ethics and standards]].
[[Ethic_of_reciprocity|Golden Rule]] ("not to inflict
harm") can be taken to be another example. Some of the
important editorial standards in Wikipedia are
discussed below.
=== Objectivity ===
A Wiki article should reflect judgment based on
observable phenomena, physical reality, and should be
uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
Absence of [[bias]] and lack of emotional involvement
are necessary. Separation between news, opinions, and
advertisements is also equally important. Competing
points of view need to be balanced and fairly
characterized in the articles.
=== Privacy ===
As Wikipedia becomes more popular and readership
increases, the potential impact of published material,
whether positive or negative, also magnifies.
Therefore, [[journalism ethics and standards]] become
relevant and editors are encouraged to consider when
editing wikipedia. Editors should also consider
notable individuals' rights to [[privacy]] and strive
to [[Journalism ethics and standards#Harm limitation
principle|limit unnecessary harm or discomfort]] to
them. These factors should be balanced against the
[[public interest]] in reporting information about
them. This might occasionally lead to an [[ethical
dilemma]], and requires greater effort on the part of
editors to discuss and deliberate when making
editorial decisions.
=== Responsibility ===
When making editorial decisions, each editor should
make some personal consideration of sensitivity
towards private individuals, children and juveniles,
victims of crime, and people who are currently
suffering grief and tragedy.
=== Public accountability ===
Wikipedia has an obligation towards it's readers. It
is not in Wikipedia editors' interest to act
irresponsibly or improperly, in a manner that is
contrary to public interest and in a fashion that
violates the trust of our donors and the public.
Upholding the public's trust is easier than re-gaining
it.
=== Censorship ===
[[Censorship]] in any form is not acceptable. 'No
censorship' means information/descriptions/expressions
should be included into or excluded from an article
for editorial reasons or ethical concerns only based
on the editorial consensus. Based on their judgment
concerning verifiability of information, information
content, and encyclopedic nature of the article,
Wikipedia editors can include or exclude some
information, expressions, and visual or verbal
descriptions into or from an article. A description
can be considered inappropriate for one article but it
might be appropriate for another. The article-based
classification gives that flexibility in
decision-making to the editors.
=== Offense ===
It is not in our interest to offend Wikipedians or
people who are using Wiki as a source of information.
It is generally possible to find a different version
of the same description which might be found less
offensive or not offensive at all, while expressing
the core idea clearly. A careful use of language can
help in that direction. Keeping the informative
materials stated objectively in the article is
necessary as a means to this end. No offense policy
restricts deliberate attacks to any religious values
or people, [[culture]]s, [[life style]]s, etc. It is
always good to be considerate regarding the concerns
raised by 'minorities' of particular discussions or
articles.
=== Pornography ===
[[Pornography]] can be described as visual or verbal
descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause
sexual excitement and should generally be avoided in
Wiki articles. The decision of what is appropriate and
what is pornographic is discussed on an article by
article basis to form a consensus.
=== Violence ===
Editors should be sensitive in portraying
[[violence]], that is aggression or rough unwarranted
force intended to cause physical or emotional harm on
another being, in Wikipedia articles. They should also
be sensitive about the rights of victims who are
subject to violence and also the possibility, if any,
that these portrayals may incite someone to harm
others.
=== Racism ===
[[Racism]] can be defined as the notion that people of
one race or creed are superior to another. In
Wikipedia articles, expressions that unnecessarily
portray prejudice, discrimination or intolerance of
people of a certain race or creed are to be avoided.
The expressions that intended to be divisive over
nationality, race, colour or creed and also that
glorify or incite someone to ethnic, racial hatred,
strife, and violence cannot be considered as
encyclopedic.
=== Propaganda ===
Wiki articles must not be written from the perspective
of supporting any political, social, or religious
movements. Editors should be careful about the
information uploaded by an organization or a
government to promote a policy, idea, or cause. It is
also advisable to be more conscious regarding
deceptive or distorted information that is
systematically spread.
=== Bias ===
Editors should be careful in regard to reflecting
their religious or spiritual beliefs as well as
ideology into the composition of the articles. It is
advised that the possibility of causing animosity
between spiritual beliefs, lifestyles or ideologies
should be carefully examined and avoided.
=== Sexism ===
[[Sexism]] can be defined as discriminatory or abusive
behavior towards someone based on their gender
identification. Expressions that unnecessarily promote
sexism in articles are not encyclopedic.
=== Language ===
Language used is often as important as the context.
[[Slang]] words, [[rudeness]], [[sarcasm]] are not
useful in articles and should be avoided.
== Policies relevant to ethics on Wikipedia ==
=== Policies ===
# [[Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions]]: Wikipedia
strives for consensus to build an encyclopedia.
Decisions which are made about articles or policies
should not be regarded as binding. That does not mean
you should ignore a consensual decision; it means that
everything in the wiki is subject to change at a later
date.
# [[Wikipedia:Civility]]: Being rude, insensitive or
petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia working
well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and
be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.
Mediation is available if needed.
# [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]]: The license Wikipedia uses
grants free access to our content in the same sense as
open source software is licensed freely.
# [[Wikipedia:Harassment]]: Do not stop other editors
from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking
good-faith edits to different articles, repeated
personal attacks or posting personal information.
# [[WP:IUP]]: Be very careful when uploading
copyrighted images, fully describe the images' sources
and copyright details on their description pages, and
try to make images as useful and reusable as possible.
# [[Wikipedia:Libel]]: It is Wikipedia policy to
delete libelous revisions from the page history. If
you believe you have been defamed, please contact the
help desk.
# [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]: All Wikipedia
articles must be written from a <em>neutral point of
view</em>, representing views fairly and without bias.
This includes reader-facing templates, categories and
portals.
# [[Wikipedia:No original research]]: Articles may not
contain any unpublished theories, data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any <u>new analysis
or synthesis</u> of published data, statements,
concepts, arguments, or ideas.
# [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]: There is no
excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do
not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and
maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.
# [[WP:NOT]]: Wikipedia is first and foremost an
online [[encyclopedia]], and ''as a means to that
end'', [[meta:The Wikipedia Community|an online
community]]. Please avoid the temptation to use
Wikipedia for other purposes, or to treat it as
something it is not.
# [[WP:OFFICE]]: The Wikimedia Foundation receives an
increasingly large number of phone calls and emails
from people who are upset about various uploads on the
site. Sometimes these complaints are valid; more often
they are not. However, in most cases, even with the
invalid complaints, there is a short-term action which
can and should be taken as a courtesy in order to
soothe feelings and build a better encyclopedia in the
long run.
# [[WP:OWN]]: You agreed to allow others to modify
your work here. So let them.
# [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule]]: Do not
[[Wikipedia:Revert|revert]] any single page ''in whole
or in part'' more than three times in 24 hours. (Or
else an Administrator may [[Wikipedia:Blocking
policy|suspend your account]].)
# [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]: Vandalism is any addition,
deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate
attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia.
Vandalism is determined by the judgment of the
Wikipedia administrators.
# [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]]: Information on
Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints,
theories, and arguments may only be included in
articles if they have <u>already been published by
[[WP:RS|reliable and reputable sources]]</U>. Articles
should [[WP:CITE|cite these sources]] whenever
possible. Any un-sourced material may be challenged
and removed.
=== Guidelines ===
# [[Wikipedia:Accountability]]: As an informal
guideline, many Wikipedians prefer that people should
log in before making drastic changes to existing
articles.
# [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]]: To assume good
faith is a fundamental principle on any Wiki project,
including Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it
follows that we assume that most people who work on
the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
# [[WP:ATK]]: A Wikipedia article written for the sole
purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page.
# [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]: Wikipedia works by building
consensus. This is done through polite discussion and
negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus
regarding proper application of policies and
guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Surveys and
the Request for comment process are designed to assist
consensus-building when normal talk page communication
fails.
# [[Wikipedia:Criticism]]: [[Wikipedia]] must strive
for a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] and
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] in general and in regards
to [[criticism]] of article's topics.
# [[Wikipedia:Divisiveness]]: Divisiveness on
Wikipedia between members of the Wikipedia community
is against Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and
reason for existing because Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia and dividing Wikipedia contributors up
into seperated camps hinders rather than helps the
process of creating and maintaining an encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic]]: Wikipedia is a
communal effort. To make it work, contributors must
think from a community perspective as well as a
personal one.
# [[Wikipedia:Don't_panic]]: It's easy to get caught
up in an emotionally fired up argument over something
that is so important that it must be fixed
immediately. Moral outrage over an issue is a common
source of panic. Before removing the offending text,
perform a sanity check to see if any actual policies
are being violated.
# [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]: Wikipedia's contributors
come from many different countries and cultures. We
have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds,
sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect
is the key to collaborating effectively in building an
encyclopedia.
# [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]]: Neutral Point Of View.
An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that
has been written without showing a stand on the issue
at hand. This is especially important for the
encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in
which very often there is an abundance of differing
views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral
representation, the differing points of view are
presented as such, not as facts.
# [[WP:POINT]]: State your point on Wikipedia. Do not
attempt to make an example out of anyone/anything to
prove the point.
# [[Wikipedia:Profanity]]: Words and images that would
be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by
typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only
if their omission would cause the article to be less
informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally
suitable alternatives are available. Including
information about offensive material is part of
Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is
not.
# [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]]: If you can provide
useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but
bear in mind that edits for which no reliable
references are provided may be deleted by any editor.
# [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages]]: Sign
all your posts on Wikipedia talk pages by typing
<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to be accountable and to help
others understand the conversation.
# [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines]]: When writing on
a Wikipedia talk page, certain methods of
communication are counterproductive, while others help
make progress smoother. This guideline is designed to
help Wikipedians use talk pages effectively.
# [[Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines]]: Vanity information
is considered to be any information that was placed in
any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent
conflict of interest, meaning any material that
presents the appearance of being intended to in any
way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or
one of the close family members or associates of the
author.
== See also ==
# [[Journalism ethics and standards]]
---------------------
Further Explanations
---------------------
Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some
good suggestions in it I believe:
1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion about
the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user
relations. Isn't it time to start talking about
solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent
versions of the same problem?
2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion from
my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.
3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does not
devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not
attempt to take their eternal status back. It does not
propose radical changes but maybe a different look and
acceptable variations of the current
infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for
ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows of
Wikigod(des)s.
4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
admins.
5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather than
irritate them.
6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system from
possible problems before they arise (by constructing
study groups, etc., for example).
7. Both community and encyclopedia are crucial
components for Wikipedia. The problems are caused by
the fact that '''the bridges between these two
components are not efficient'''. [[WP:OURS]] is a
simple but sincere attempt to strengthen, enhance and
improve the efficiency of these bridges. I hope it
gets enough attention.
Regarding Wikiethics:
Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A user,
who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the
approval poll at a very early stage of the proposal. I
then started another poll right after that to ask the
community if an approval poll is needed at that stage.
I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought that
the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then the
poll I started to ask what people think about the
timing of an approval poll vandalized many times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=ne…
or its place suddenly became a problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44…http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45…
Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to vote
on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it is
not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not valid
by the community consensus. Moveover if you can check
the votes on the approval poll itself, some people are
saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at
that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll I
started,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a…
simply because it was not available to them. So the
numbers reported on the talk page does not reflect the
case as is.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
>From: Raphael Wegmann <raphael(a)psi.co.at>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 04:55:42 +0200
>
> >> Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >>> After my message ([[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
> >>> admin-user relations - below) the link to the
> >>> updated version of another proposal
> >>> [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> >>> under my old user page is deleted for ''the good
of
> >>> Wikipedia''.
> >
> > Raphael wrote:
> >> Fortunately I've made a backup of your last
version
> >> here [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]]
> >> though I am not sure whether some administrator
will
> >> censor this too.
> >>
>Resid Gulerdem wrote:
> >
> > Dear Raphael,
> > That is very kind of you. I do appreciate for
it.
>
>Dear Resid,
>
>unfortunately now even my copy of your latest version
>of Wikiethics got deleted. I've filed a Deletion
review,
>but it seems like some admins are already at a point,
>where they completely disregard any policy and act as
>one thinks best.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Raphael1.2FWiki…
>
>I truely appreciate your efforts to try to find a
>reasonable solution to the problem. But I doubt,
>that those in power, who would have to allow such
>a proposal to be discussed and passed, are already
>too detached from the consequences of their
>"might makes right" mentality to even realize the
>problem, and will use all possible means to make
>it fail.
>
>Beside those addressed in [[WP:OURS]] I see multiple
>problems:
>
>RfCs seem to be some kind of sympathy contests,
>where admins get the possibility to defend each
other.
>It seems to be an important place for admins to
improve
>their social standing. Allegations are not taken
seriously,
>instead the accused party can simply claim to follow
>policies "in spirit" and accuse the nominating editor
of
>Wikilaywering.
>
>The way Wikipedia implements voting generally
>increases peer pressure. Even though it would
>include some technical work, Wikipedia desperately
>needs _anonymous_ voting. Editors with weak
personalities
>tend to use the possibility of a vote to express
>their support to a "higher ranking" individual.
>
>There is no separation of powers: Admins are judges
>and hangmen in one person and have plenty of
possibilities
>to cover up their action behind weakly worded
policies.
>
>Generally speaking - we must not forget, that
Wikipedia
>is a social community, where all (good and bad)
associated
>mechanisms play along.
>
>best regards
>--
>Raphael
Hi Raphael,
Nice try, thanks a ton. What they are doing does
not surprise me anymore. Do not bother yourself with
their poor behaviour either. If you are right, you are
strong! People who do wrong deliberately cannot find a
standpoint in their spirit and their soul always
suffer, feel week and are in fear.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I recently indef-banned another sock of ENorcross (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide…
at AN/I) and requested a checkuser. Eric has decided (in addition to
posting personal information to my talk page in a...somewhat
threatening manner, see its deletion log) to correspond with me
through myspace. In addition to a message he sent me at 4:16AM EDT
saying that "wikipedia has you whipped, boy", he sent the following
via myspace:
"Subject: User: Investigation Request
Body: In a last ditch effort to make peace I've decided to give you
all of my alias's.
ericnorcross
almostfamous
sevenlinefeatures
katherinejohnson
nicole lyn
finding a solution (heh, I noticed all history of the contributions
have disappeared... interesting.)
econrad
and of course that IP you posted on the request for check user pages.
I'm prepared to make a peace offering, that is of course, unless
you're willing to accept it. "
With the exception that econrad is the user he previously threatened
and started the most recent conflict with.
Would it be a waste of time to throw this up at Arb as well?
-Ras
--
John Lyden - rasputinaxp(a)gmail.com
"The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to
live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same
time..." -Kerouac