User:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki C

=Community Standards= RationalWiki has a set of community standards. Many of them are honoured more in the breach than in the act. We will review them here and give a score out of ten. The scoring system will be similar to the block length used by many RW sysops - in other words, it will be a number pulled randomly out of the air. The RW guidelines are in italics.

Introduction
"This is the list of guidelines defined by the RationalWiki community. These are not site rules but rather a list of standards we as a community want to live up to. Please do your best to live up to these standards."

OK - so they are aspirations rather than rules.

Standards of Behavior
"This is a mobocracy. The only way to describe how things are done around here is with the tautology that things are done around here the way they are done around here. We are ultimately an expression of the active editors on this project. What is written about, how it is discussed, parsed and organized is a reflection of the community makeup, and not a set of rules or policies."

So, yes it's a tautology. 0 out of 10 - for being a tautology. "Personal 'attacks', however justified, are strongly frowned upon."

This is a difficult one. What exactly is a "personal attack"? Just an insult? And how strong an insult? And does it refer to people both on-site and off-site? If it refers to people off-site then a lot of the stuff about CP sysops - not to mention Andrew Schlafly - would seem to be out of bounds. Even if it only means people on-site then the RWians are certainly not above insulting each other. 1 out of 10 - systematically ignored.

"Personal information about other users that is not volunteered by that user should not be posted on this site. This includes IP addresses, and even where an IP address is volunteered, discussion of the user's geographical location, place of employment, or other private information (even if publicly available) is frowned upon."

Many CP sysops are (intermittent) RW users, but that does not stop RW publishing facts about them or using their real names. 1 out of 10 - systematically ignored.

"An editor's User page space is inviolable; they are free to do with it what they want (common-sense-exceptions apply), and no one should edit it without permission. However, the user talk page space is public and does not belong to the user. No deletion of talk page material is permitted, but archiving may be done periodically."

User pages are occasionally invaded especially when people don't like red links or when a vandal or sock template is used. Occasionaly embarrassing information is very quickly archived. 6 out of 10 for effort.

"Good wandals are respected at RationalWiki, a good wandal is someone that brings creativity and humor to bear on their attempt at disruption. These kinds of wandals will not only not be blocked but their efforts will be saved for posterity on Special Wandal Archives. However, unfunny wandalism, personal attacks, libel, and disruption for the sake of disruption can all merit a block and at the very least such edits will be wiped clean and forgotten about."

There are no respected good wandals, so the first part is fantasy. The wandal archives have died the death. No mention of vandal brake. 4 out of ten - low mark for being out of date.

"Please, don't be a dick. Even though we encourage those with alternative points of view to join this wiki and share their ideas with us, we ask and encourage you to consider how your actions look to other people. Hate speech or attempting to promote an agenda that offends the community and does not relate to RationalWiki's mission anywhere but on talk pages will almost certainly be removed or archived rapidly, and if you persist in recreating the content, you may be removed from this site for a period of time."

Looks like a late addition after the touchy-feely early days were over. Still it does describe the current less tolerant position, so 10 out of 10 for accuracy and honesty.

Standards of Style
"Please do your best to watch for spelling and grammar mistakes. If you see some mispeelings, fix them!"

Did you see that clever joke? Yes, they deliberately spelled "mispelling" wrong. Freaking hilarious! Clearly Rational Wiki needs a lot more humour at this "Family Circus" standard.

"When referencing material on another wiki (or any website) please try to use permanent links or diffs. Links to the more volatile 'live' versions are likely to become outdated soon after linking."

No comment at this time.

Site structure and Organization Standards
No comment as this section is purely descriptive.

Blocking policy
"Our blocking system is designed to be forgiving, predictable and as clear as possible. Our blocking scheme follows the Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8...). The 'unit' of the time will be up to the discretion of the blocking sysop who has the following units available:"

Hollow laughter follows the sentence: Our blocking system is designed to be forgiving, predictable and as clear as possible. It is none of these things. As for the Fibonacci sequence it is the single most pretentious and unused policy on the wiki. It was used once in a ham-fisted way against TK and that's it. Also still no vandal brake update. 0 out of 10 for irrelevance.

Seconds-For fun blocks, harmless edits/warnings, random harassment of fellow sysops. Minutes-For minor vandalism and disruption, questionable attacks on other users, inserting potentially libelous material in an article, and minor edits to other user pages when not requested. ''Hours/Days-For more major vandalism and disruption that requires serious clean-up, serious attacks or threats against the site or other users. Repeated libel, vandalism and attacks.''

At the end of 2008, year-long blocks or longer were becoming common. To be fair, they were reversed - but not without some debate. Blocks for real vandals of "minutes" don't happen.

3 out of 10 is a generous mark.

"Offenses from multiple IDs of the same user will all be assessed as a single user."

While at one time socks were welcomed, this guideline seems to suggest otherwise. "Other sysops are encouraged to unblock a user if they feel it is unjustified. Users who feel they have been unfairly blocked should e-mail any other sysops, users, or post on the forums. In all cases, discussion is encouraged, and blocks should always be explained on the user's talk page."

Almost no sysop explains things on a blocked user's page. 0 out of 10 - guideline not followed.

Attempted update
Following the publication of the above Rationalwiki was sort of sort of stimulated into sort of re-evaluating its Community Standards. The result was sadly predictable. Axes were ground, hobby horses were mounted, feelings were hurt, much angst was shared amongst the good users - and to what end?

Well, nothing really at least, as of the end of January 2009. Three cheers for the mobocracy!