Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VeryVerily (talk | contribs) at 08:49, 23 August 2004 (rambling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Here are my observations of different underlying philosophies of Misplaced Pages which may underlie conflicts. People with different views on these spectrums may be stuck in a conflict which is actually a meta-conflict.

Disclaimer: This is just me rambling.

Eventualism vs. immediatism

Extreme immediatism

• The key is to make Misplaced Pages a useful and reliable Internet resource

as of now.

• Any edit which is problematic should be reverted on sight; there is

no time to fix it while live.

• New ideas for changes should be developed in a sandbox.

Moderate immediatism

• Articles should be in as good condition as possible when they are

live.

• Dispute notices should only be used if there's no clear "right"

version to post in interim.

• Reverting poor writing and unbalanced coverage is appropriate.

Cleaning it up would be too tricky and take too long.

• Sandboxes are most geared towards proposed major edits.

Moderate eventualism

• It is worth maintaining articles in good condition, but not to the

extent it would stymie their organic growth through the Wiki process.

• Edits should only be reverted if they are unsalvageable or at least

hard to salvage.

• Poor and biased writing should be addressed, but unless there is no

content should not simply be erased.

Extreme eventualism

• The process of free, continuous editing will in the long run make

articles better and better.

• Only vandalism should be reverted. Anyone who makes an edit has

something to say which should be respected.

• Poor and biased writing and misinformation will be corrected in due

time. Relax.

Statusquoism

Moderate statusquoism

• The state an article has been in for some length of time is the

benchmark.

• Edits which add controversial material should be reverted until

justified in Talk.

Moderate anti-statusquoism

• Edits should not be reverted unless they are truly just troublesome.

• Poor writing is not a problem; later editors will fix it up.

• If an edit is so controversial that it should be reverted, an

explanation should be given on Talk so the author can respond.

Extreme anti-statusquoism

• Edits should not be reverted unless they are basically vandalism.

• Poor writing, biased coverage, and questionable information is no

problem; in time, later editors will fix this up.

• Similar to eventualism.

Extreme statusquoism

• An article should not be altered in any potentially controversial way

without prior justification.

• The removal of controversial content, say pending fact-checking

or discussion, should be reverted until justified in Talk and agreed upon.

• The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to make a change. Unless

they're reverting.

Communityism vs. encylopedianism

Communityism

• Misplaced Pages should be made a welcoming place for newcomers who wish to

participate.

• Actions which might be seen as rude and disrespectful to others

should be avoided, even if avoiding them temporarily negatively affects the content.

• Personal attacks should not tolerated.

Encyclopedism

• The sole purpose of Misplaced Pages is to build an encyclopedia; social

interaction is a byproduct of no importance.

• Treating people respectfully and being nice to newbies is only

desirable inasmuch as it encourages contribution.

• Personal attacks are no big deal. Indeed, it is hard to say they're

bad at all if it makes an editor who is wrong back off.