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''. I thought I should provide the ones who would like to see that proposal with the correct link. Earlier version can be found at [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. It is tag'ed as 'rejected' but the truth is, I could never find an opportunity to put it to a vote properly. I also copy pasted the updated version below this message for the sake of completeness and for your convenience. Best, RG
Message: 8 Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 04:53:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Resid Gulerdem resid_gulerdem@yahoo.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for
admin-user relations
To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID:
20060531115320.74085.qmail@web52711.mail.yahoo.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
The comments were very useful in general. The most important ones among them are the ones addressing possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal for it was one of them.
I was thinking on this problem for quite some time and had already some ideas about the solution in mind. I decided to post them here. I am a user who blocked indefinitely (how do you think I know the 'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I hope that the points raised below contribute to the efforts towards a solution. Just a quick suggestion...
I tried to express it using a semi-formal language. Further explanations are given [in the square brackets].
Best,
Resid
[[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.]
- '''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.]
- '''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. When 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.]
- '''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 dynamics 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.]
- '''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_limitation... Harm limitation principle], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Taste.2C_decenc... 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]]
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com