This is an old revision of this page, as edited by VeryVerily (talk | contribs) at 08:52, 23 August 2004 (→Communityism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:52, 23 August 2004 by VeryVerily (talk | contribs) (→Communityism)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 be 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.