| Revision as of 10:43, 25 November 2010 editKotniski (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers40,317 edits →What is this?← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:19, 25 November 2010 edit undoGigs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,455 edits →What is this?: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| :::Yes, you did dig. As the above section mentions, I did a pretty major non-policy copy-edit to the FAQ last month or so, and I didn't notice anything 'out of consensus' except for ASF which was removed/refactored from the NPOV policy but is still in the FAQ. That one was a bit too controversial to get into at the time, and probably needs some broader editor input before updating to reflect the current policy. I don't think there's a 'legal' problem per se, since the policy itself is presumed to be binding and not the commentary on it. Then again, it's weird to have an FAQ question about a section that has substantially changed or been moved around. So, in response to your initial question, do you think the FAQ is ok to be linked to? ] (]) 05:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC) | :::Yes, you did dig. As the above section mentions, I did a pretty major non-policy copy-edit to the FAQ last month or so, and I didn't notice anything 'out of consensus' except for ASF which was removed/refactored from the NPOV policy but is still in the FAQ. That one was a bit too controversial to get into at the time, and probably needs some broader editor input before updating to reflect the current policy. I don't think there's a 'legal' problem per se, since the policy itself is presumed to be binding and not the commentary on it. Then again, it's weird to have an FAQ question about a section that has substantially changed or been moved around. So, in response to your initial question, do you think the FAQ is ok to be linked to? ] (]) 05:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::If it can be edited to be a bit more sensibly worded, then it's OK to link to it (just as we often link to essays and various other pages from policy pages - it doesn't give them the status of policy). But there are certainly many problems with this page, and the best solution might be just to merge it back in to the policy page - I don't think this issue of neutrality is so complex that explaining it needs to generate so much text as we have now.--] (]) 10:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC) | ::::If it can be edited to be a bit more sensibly worded, then it's OK to link to it (just as we often link to essays and various other pages from policy pages - it doesn't give them the status of policy). But there are certainly many problems with this page, and the best solution might be just to merge it back in to the policy page - I don't think this issue of neutrality is so complex that explaining it needs to generate so much text as we have now.--] (]) 10:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::::I think if it isn't merged, we need to be careful ''how'' it is linked to from the main policy. We'd want to avoid any implication that the policy is deferring to the FAQ, which I kind of sensed a little of prior to my first message in this thread. ] (]) 17:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:19, 25 November 2010
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Rewrite/Copy-edit for Brevity, Clarity
Ludwigs suggested the FAQ might need to be brought in line with recent changes to NPOV. I wanted to just do a non-policy clean-up first to get a better idea of what we were dealing with. I generally just shortened phrases and clarified the language to be more direct. I left ASF and Pseudoscience alone, since they are more touchy at the moment. QG made the comment that the FAQ had been "weakened", but I think that is a misreading of the change. I'm curious if there are some more specific comments or other observations. Ocaasi (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
What is this?
Why is this essay linked from from the policy as if it's got some kind of wide spread consensus? Gigs (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no idea where it came from but it it's been around a while, and it seems to be a spillover for extraneous bits and a clarification area for common objections. I assume it has 'essay' status, as in whatever it says is only supposed to explain NPOV and any difference between them would obviously defer to NPOV. Wouldn't it be weirder not to link to the NPOV faq from NPOV? Ocaasi (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I dug around and it was originally part of the NPOV policy proper. It was semi-boldly spun out which drew no objections, since it's very essay-like. At one point someone tagged it with a policy tag which was challenged by quite a few editors after someone finally noticed the tag. This became the subject of an RfC that drew very poor participation, and it was eventually untagged because there was no real consensus to keep it tagged as policy. The main arguments for it were based on its coverage of fringe pseudoscience, which seems to have been subsumed both back into NPOV and other guidelines. I'm not sure it's kept up with consensus since it was spun off. Gigs (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you did dig. As the above section mentions, I did a pretty major non-policy copy-edit to the FAQ last month or so, and I didn't notice anything 'out of consensus' except for ASF which was removed/refactored from the NPOV policy but is still in the FAQ. That one was a bit too controversial to get into at the time, and probably needs some broader editor input before updating to reflect the current policy. I don't think there's a 'legal' problem per se, since the policy itself is presumed to be binding and not the commentary on it. Then again, it's weird to have an FAQ question about a section that has substantially changed or been moved around. So, in response to your initial question, do you think the FAQ is ok to be linked to? Ocaasi (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- If it can be edited to be a bit more sensibly worded, then it's OK to link to it (just as we often link to essays and various other pages from policy pages - it doesn't give them the status of policy). But there are certainly many problems with this page, and the best solution might be just to merge it back in to the policy page - I don't think this issue of neutrality is so complex that explaining it needs to generate so much text as we have now.--Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think if it isn't merged, we need to be careful how it is linked to from the main policy. We'd want to avoid any implication that the policy is deferring to the FAQ, which I kind of sensed a little of prior to my first message in this thread. Gigs (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- If it can be edited to be a bit more sensibly worded, then it's OK to link to it (just as we often link to essays and various other pages from policy pages - it doesn't give them the status of policy). But there are certainly many problems with this page, and the best solution might be just to merge it back in to the policy page - I don't think this issue of neutrality is so complex that explaining it needs to generate so much text as we have now.--Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, you did dig. As the above section mentions, I did a pretty major non-policy copy-edit to the FAQ last month or so, and I didn't notice anything 'out of consensus' except for ASF which was removed/refactored from the NPOV policy but is still in the FAQ. That one was a bit too controversial to get into at the time, and probably needs some broader editor input before updating to reflect the current policy. I don't think there's a 'legal' problem per se, since the policy itself is presumed to be binding and not the commentary on it. Then again, it's weird to have an FAQ question about a section that has substantially changed or been moved around. So, in response to your initial question, do you think the FAQ is ok to be linked to? Ocaasi (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I dug around and it was originally part of the NPOV policy proper. It was semi-boldly spun out which drew no objections, since it's very essay-like. At one point someone tagged it with a policy tag which was challenged by quite a few editors after someone finally noticed the tag. This became the subject of an RfC that drew very poor participation, and it was eventually untagged because there was no real consensus to keep it tagged as policy. The main arguments for it were based on its coverage of fringe pseudoscience, which seems to have been subsumed both back into NPOV and other guidelines. I'm not sure it's kept up with consensus since it was spun off. Gigs (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)