This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 927 (talk | contribs) at 17:11, 20 October 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:11, 20 October 2004 by 927 (talk | contribs)(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.
Please feel free to add comments or content to the bottom of this page, but please do not apply edits before the section #Contributed material.
Disclaimer: This is just me rambling.
The first of these continua employ standard Wiki terms. The others I just made up.
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 be avoided unless 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
Deliberately not in continuum order to order concepts.
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.
Authorism vs. anti-authorism
Authorism
- Articles, or sections of article, often have a distinguished "main author" who is primarily the writer of the article.
- The original author should be regarded as having more clout than others in how it should be organized and flow.
- While major changes by non-authors should require justification, the original author should feel entitled to reorganize his own prose.
- An article may require inquiry as to "original intent" from the author before changes are made.
Anti-authorism
(I'd like a punchier name for this.)
- There is no author for articles. Although one person may seed an article, each one is a community effort.
- Once an article text has been submitted, the submitter has no special privileges vis-a-vis future edits to that text.
- There is no "original intent" other than what is in the text and perhaps notes on the discussion page.
Rehabilism vs. anti-rehabilism
Sketchy
Anti-rehabilism
- Trolls and other problem users and should be banned and done with.
- A former troll has a lot to prove if they want to ever be allowed to contribute again.
Rehabilism
- Every editor, even vandals, is a potential contributor.
- Every opportunity should be extended for a former troll to rehabilitate themselves.
- Meatball:AssumeGoodFaith. Give the benefit of the doubt.
- The cost of fighting a troll is higher than fixing whatever trouble they cause.
Edit warring
Wholly lacking titles here.
WikiPacifism
- Edit wars considered harmful. They are also childish and pointless.
- Edit wars poison the page history, flood recent changes, and disrupt other editors.
- A responsible user should walk away from a persistent reverter. Let others handle it.
Not considered harmful
- Edit wars are part of the editorial process.
- The damage from a war now and then is minimal and greatly overstated.
- Repeatedly reverting a damaging edit is wholly appropriate.
Adminship
Who should become an admin. To be completed.
Factions
This section was added by other users and is not endorsed by User:VeryVerily.
Factionalism
To be completed.
Antifactionalism
To be completed.
Contributed material
Material appearing after this section should not be construed as being endorsed by VeryVerily.
Neutrality
- This section was added by Charles Stewart and The Cunctator.
Basic skill
- Cultivating the habit of always writing from a NPOV in all wikipedia editing is a skill that is not difficult to acquire.
- NPOV editing does not ever substantially conflict with other editing goals, and should never be compromised.
- Provided all the relevant facts are available, it is not difficult to tell if writing is POV.
Elusive virtue
- Composing NPOV text on contentious texts can be deeply difficult, requiring introspection and testing one's honesty with oneself.
- Writing from a NPOV stance can conflict fundamentally with comprehensiveness, conciseness and freshness of writing, and, though of great value, sometimes it is best sacrificed to promote other editing good.
- Facts can only be grasped from a POV; everyone has blindspots with respect to their own prejudices.
Unattainable absolute
- A neutral point of view requires omniscience and omnipresence. Noone has that.
- The comprehensive whole of all Misplaced Pages can be said to approach a neutral point of view as it becomes more comprehensive and includes more factual information. A single entry can only be said to have a neutral point of view assuming the limitations of the subject (which is not a neutral act).
- "NPOV" as used on Misplaced Pages does not mean "neutral point of view". It's shorthand for a particular style of writing which avoids authoritative statements and is highly contextual, particularly temporally. "NPOV" writing often ages poorly.
Suggested point for Edit warring: #Not considered harmful
- Misplaced Pages is a m:battlefield of ideas; edit wars are part of the editorial process. User:927
Suggested point for Communityism vs. Encyclopeadism: #Communityism
- All articles should reflect the consensus point of view of the community. User:927
- No, I don't think this fits the communityism philosophy which is accepting and open to other view points rather than imposing the consensus will on minorities. Community is finding a way to live together, not about homgeneity.--Silverback 07:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- hmmm, sometimes logins don't stick and I have to put in username by hand.
- Fair enough. It's hard for us to figure out what the actual viewpoints of all these factions are; we are probably best to back off and let communityists themselves define their views. Most of these distinctions are just straw men right now.
- No, I don't think this fits the communityism philosophy which is accepting and open to other view points rather than imposing the consensus will on minorities. Community is finding a way to live together, not about homgeneity.--Silverback 07:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- hmmm, sometimes logins don't stick and I have to put in username by hand.