RationalWiki:Community Standards/disruption

Proposed community standard about off-site activity
This page is intended to serve as a place for the mob to voice its opinion about the proposed community standard below, without further cluttering the CS talk page.

Proposed Language
Long version to be placed on the community standards page: RationalWiki, above all else, advocates the values of reason, logic, and moderation in politics and religion, as well as a proper understanding of the role of scientific knowledge in both of these fields. Our perspectives often place us in direct opposition with certain communities, and specifically, certain websites.

In pursuit of these goals, RationalWiki encourages its editors and community members to speak up, and through rhetoric and debate, force others to think about the "hard questions." However, RationalWiki does not condone the use of internet disruption as a means to this end. We exercise no control over our individual editors, and RationalWiki editors who engage in this kind of activity cannot be presumed to be speaking for the website.

Finally, as a community built on humor and friendship, we will support any of our contributors who face reproach for their actions, and heartily support satire and humor as forms of valuable political speech.

Short version to be placed on other pages as appropriate, with a link to the long version: Although the actions of individual editors are naturally beyond our control, RationalWiki does not encourage or condone actions intended to disrupt the usability or functionality of any other website. Goatspeed!!!

Summary
This statement would dissociate RationalWiki and its editors as a mob from the off-site actions of individuals who may or may not be RW editors. The intention of the statement is not to censure or otherwise chastise individual editors, who (obviously) are responsible for their own actions, but to prevent RW itself from abetting (or appearing to abet) vandalism of other websites for the purpose of advancing the credibility of its own content in the interest of better furthering its mission statement.

Objections to the adoption of the statement might center around
 * 1) Whether it is necessary
 * 2) Whether it handcuffs valid ways of refuting pseudoscience and its promoters

Relevant Yapping

 * User_talk:Jazzman831
 * "A day that will live in infamy .... (the Samwell incident)
 * RationalWiki Talk:Community Standards

Support
Sign here to support, with any comments


 * Support as is, per discussion at User_talk:Jazzman831--Bayesupdate 22:06, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Support, though I have the feeling many will respond that we still secretly endorse vandalism and that this is just a cover-up. ThunderkatzHo! 22:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
 * No doubt, but discouraging specific episodes of RW-stamped vandalism would help our case. I think having herd deniability helps the sciency part of what we do.--Bayesupdate 22:59, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Addendum: If passed, what will happen to the Info Warrior's Handbook? ThunderkatzHo! 22:25, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Disclaimer it "for informational purposes only" of course :). 22:38, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, this would need a disclaimer.--Bob's your uncle 04:11, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Support we don't secretly endorse vandalism? - Icewedge 22:59, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
 * No, apparently, we openly endorse it! Jesus on an Easter tree, I got bannzored at CP for being your tool! human be in 01:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Support, as per endless discussion, but also see below... Susan might be right. human be in 23:34, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Support, as long as we make it clear that we won't be punishing people - we just don't condone or encourage their behaviour. -- H [[Image:Vista-epiphany.png|9px]] ji machong  01:34, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Support. For site credibility.  And as per previous discussions.--Bob's your uncle 04:11, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Neutral
Sign here to remain neutral, with any comments
 * Locke [[Image:Eye.jpg|10px|User is Vandal/sysop]]  Always Watching...... 00:34, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I would do ice cream but I am lactose intolerant. 00:35, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
 * I prefer neutral to accidentally jamming the tranny into gear in traffic.  But what the hell does this have to do with the burning question of the day!!!???  Whatver that was... ice cream?  Make mine strawberry. human be in 01:46, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Oppose
Sign here to oppose, with any comments


 * Oppose Defensive knee jerk reaction not necessary. Susan  talk to me  22:14, 22 September 2007 (EDT)


 * Oppose per Susan's reasoning. And I edited her thing to make these all look the same.  I'm such a wikifreak.  When I say "per Susan's reasoning", I mean, I agree, who cares or gives a shit, like, next week? human be in 23:36, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Ice Cream
Sign here if you don't really care but you do like ice cream.

Mmmm. . . Ice cream. . . Masterbratac 22:15, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Approve. I like ice cream.  You know, the good stuff - totally toxic, creamy, yummy. human be in 01:17, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Human
Sign here if you're like Human, and have no idea what the hell you want to sign. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Hojimachong / talk / contribs
 * Approve! human be in 01:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)